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 does disclose one meaningful behavior—the path is discarded—but it does not state what the tool returns, whether it validates or normalizes, or how it handles malformed or non-Figma URLs.

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 front-loaded and contains no filler: one main clause and a short behavioral note. It is mildly ambiguous whether 'Path discarded' refers to a URL path component or the 'path' input parameter, which prevents a 5.

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 accepted parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description explains neither the return value nor how the other schema fields relate to the tool. An agent could select the tool, but not confidently predict the result of invoking it.

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; each parameter already has a descriptive comment. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning and only echoes the path-discard behavior already present in the schema's 'path' parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Parse') on a specific resource ('a Figma file URL') and adds a behavioral corollary ('Path discarded'). The Figma qualifier clearly differentiates it from sibling shape tools such as github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, and domain-shape.

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?

The description gives a clear domain constraint: this tool is for Figma file URLs. An agent can route Figma URL-parsing tasks here rather than to general URL tools like normalize-url, though no alternatives or explicit exclusions are named.

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