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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only discloses 'Path discarded,' which conveys one minor behavior but says nothing about validation, return values, side effects, or failure modes. An agent cannot predict what the tool actually does with the URL.

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 with the core purpose, and every word attempts to add information. It loses a point because 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and the definition is too terse to compensate for the confusing schema.

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?

Even though the ostensible operation is simple, the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of siblings. The description does not explain what a Figma URL shape check returns, which parameters to pass, or how this tool differs from nearby tools like browser-ur-ok or normalize-url, leaving the agent under-informed.

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%, which normally earns a baseline of 3, but the parameter descriptions are generic and mismatched to this tool. For example, the url parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' not as a Figma URL to parse, and many other parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query) appear irrelevant. With no required parameters, an agent cannot tell which inputs are actually meaningful for this operation.

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 and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This is clear and distinguishes the tool from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape. The added 'Path discarded' gives a small behavioral detail, though the wording is somewhat ambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be used when a Figma file URL needs to be parsed, so a basic usage context is present. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it reference alternatives among the many sibling shape tools.

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