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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states 'Path discarded' and implies parsing, but does not mention whether the tool mutates anything, what it returns, or how it handles the other 8 parameters. For a tool that likely validates shapes (read-only), this is a significant gap; the agent cannot anticipate side effects or output structure.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loads the core action. However, it omits essential context about the parameter set and fails to explain why the schema contains unrelated fields. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise, so it earns a mid score.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not clarify how the tool processes or discards the various inputs, what the expected output is, or how it relates to the sibling shape tools. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the current description.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. However, the tool description does not reference any parameters or explain how they relate to the Figma URL parsing purpose. The schema descriptions themselves are generic ('City name for a public weather hint') and seem unrelated to Figma, which is confusing. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL') and notes a behavior ('Path discarded'), which gives some clarity. However, the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) with no mention in the description, making it ambiguous whether this tool handles those inputs or is solely for Figma URLs. It does distinguish from siblings like 'domain-shape' and 'github-repo-shape' by name, but the mismatch between description and schema clouds the purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape/URL tools. It does not state what input types are accepted (only a Figma URL?) or what happens when other parameters are passed. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so an agent cannot infer the appropriate usage context.

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