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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The only disclosed trait is 'Path discarded,' which duplicates the schema's path parameter description ('discarded after the check'). The description does not reveal whether the tool fetches the URL, validates against Figma's URL format, or returns a boolean versus extracted components.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero fluff. However, the terseness borders on under-specification: 'Path discarded' is cryptic without context on what the path is discarded from or why, so the brevity saves words 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the tool's return value and behavior, but it only says 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The schema's nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, zone, query) appear copied from sibling tools and create confusion the description does not resolve. An agent cannot predict the output, validation semantics, or side effects.

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 and the schema already documents every parameter. The description's 'Path discarded' adds slight tool-level disambiguation by implying the URL is the operative input among the odd grab-bag of 9 parameters, but it does not explain url format expectations or what 'parse' produces.

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 resource ('a Figma file URL'), so an agent can tell what domain the tool targets. However, it never mentions the shape-checking behavior implied by the tool name and does not differentiate it from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or github-repo-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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus any of the 26 siblings. Given near-duplicate siblings such as browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, normalize-url, and various -shape tools, an agent has no basis to select figma-url-shape specifically. No when/when-not conditions or named alternatives appear.

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