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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavior—'Path discarded'—but does not say whether the tool validates, returns a normalized URL, extracts an ID, or errors on non-Figma input. The read-only/parse nature is implied, but the observable result is unspecified.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It loses points only because the brevity sacrifices useful context; the structure itself is clean.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-clause description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The agent must infer which parameter to pass, what result to expect, and how this differs from sibling URL tools.

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 even though the description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. The description does not identify which of the 9 parameters is the Figma URL to parse, but the 'url' property is self-evident; the generic schema descriptions are not fully aligned with Figma, but the rubric baseline applies.

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 a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), and the final clause adds a distinctive behavior ('Path discarded'). This makes it clearly distinct from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape, though it does not mention the 'shape/validate' aspect suggested by the tool 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or the other *-shape tools. The phrase 'Parse a Figma file URL' implies a Figma URL context, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback conditions.

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