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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only that the path is discarded, but says nothing about the output format, whether it is a read-only operation, any side effects, or error behavior. The description also conflicts with the schema's 'url' parameter description ('normalize or cite'), creating confusion about what the tool actually does.

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 only one sentence and thus concise in length, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks structure and front-loaded information; the single statement does not earn its place because it omits critical details about behavior and parameters.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs are needed, what the tool returns, or how the parameters relate to the stated purpose. The mismatch between the description and the schema further compounds the incompleteness.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are individually documented, but the description adds no meaning beyond that. It does not identify which parameter is relevant to the stated purpose (presumably 'url'), nor does it explain the roles of the other eight parameters. The description's focus on Figma URLs is not reflected in the schema, which mentions normalization/citation, so it fails to clarify parameter usage.

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 clear verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), and adds a behavioral detail ('Path discarded'). However, it is vague about what 'parse' entails (validation, extraction, normalization?) and does not distinguish it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks precision.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Path discarded' as a behavioral hint but does not state the intended use case, prerequisites, or any conditions that would select this tool over siblings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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