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, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It does not reveal whether the tool performs network access, returns extracted components, validates format, or has other side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that accepts nine unrelated string parameters.

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 short and front-loaded: 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' There is no wasted wording. However, the second sentence is cryptic and could mean either the URL path is ignored or the 'path' input is discarded, so the economy comes at the cost of clarity.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what result the agent should expect, how it relates to sibling shape-checking tools, or why nine mostly unrelated parameters are accepted. An agent lacks enough context to call this tool correctly with confidence.

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 schema already documents every parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; the phrase 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and does not meaningfully clarify the 'path' parameter or the URL path. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 names a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), and the tool name reinforces the Figma URL shape-checking domain. It is distinguishable from siblings like github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape. However, 'parse' is not fully precise about whether this validates, extracts, or normalizes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or github-repo-shape. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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