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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that 'Path discarded' but says nothing about whether the URL is validated, what the tool returns, whether it performs side effects, or how it handles malformed inputs. This is far too little given the lack of annotation support.

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 exceptionally concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word earns its place, but it is borderline under-specification rather than true conciseness; still, it is structured acceptably for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description the primary source of context. It fails to explain what 'shape' means, what the tool returns, which parameter to use when multiple are present, and how it relates to closely named siblings. Given this complexity, the description is markedly incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema—it merely hints that 'url' is the relevant parameter, but does not clarify the roles of the other eight parameters or why they are present. It does not actively compensate for the schema's broad and seemingly unrelated parameter list.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), which is clear and not a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling URL/shape tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous without more context.

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 provided about when to use this tool compared to its alternatives, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'Path discarded' hints at behavior, not usage, leaving the agent to guess which sibling is appropriate.

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