Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It does not say what the tool returns, what counts as a valid or invalid Figma URL shape, whether a network access is made, or what errors might occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, which is structurally fine, but it is so under-specific that it provides almost no useful information in its two sentences. 'Path discarded' is vague enough to be of limited value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It leaves the input selection, return format, validation behavior, and error handling entirely unclear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes all nine parameters, all with text in the schema (100% coverage). The top-level description adds very little parameter-level meaning and does not clarify which of the nine parameters are relevant for a Figma URL parse.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase 'Parse a Figma file URL' names a specific resource, but 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and the tool name suggests shape checking that the description never explains. It does not distinguish this from sibling shape tools like normalize-url or github-repo-shape beyond the resource name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over the many sibling URL/shape/checked tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback directions, so an agent cannot make a selection from the description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.