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

Annotations are empty, so this short description carries the full burden, but it only discloses 'Path discarded' and never mentions side effects, return semantics, or how it handles the three nine optional parameters. The vague note about discarding the path doesn't convey what happens in a normal call.

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?

Very brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence 'Path discarded' is terse but communicates a meaningful boundary; overall it is compact without unnecessary verbosity, though the terseness may have been used to hide important info.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what this tool does and what it returns, but it does neither. Having nine optional parameters compounds the ambiguity—the agent can't tell which are toggleable and which are irrelevant—leaving the tool incompletely constrained.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage for each parameter, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing about which of the nine params apply to the Figma URL shape check, and leaves the agent with a likely but unstated assumption that 'url' is the relevant input.

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?

Names a specific resource (Figma file URL) and verb (parse), and the name distinguishes it from siblings like 'github-repo-shape' or 'jira-key-shape'. However, 'parse' isn't defined as returning a boolean, normalized shape, or components, and 'Path discarded' is a detail rather than the outcome.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'fetch-status'. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent can't decide between it and the rest of the shape/utility family.

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