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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does note that 'Path discarded,' which is a behavioral detail beyond the bare purpose. However, it does not clarify output, handling of non-Figma URLs, or whether any network or side effect is involved.

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 very short and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then adds one behavioral note. Each sentence earns its place, though the terseness contributes to ambiguity.

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 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain which parameter to pass or what result to expect. An agent could not confidently invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 each parameter. The description adds no meaningful parameter guidance, such as which of the nine optional properties should be populated for a Figma URL. 'Path discarded' largely echoes the existing path parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The added 'Path discarded' is somewhat ambiguous but does not undermine the core 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer to use this tool when it needs to parse a Figma file URL. The description does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when another shape tool would be more appropriate.

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