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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior: the URL path is discarded. However, it does not state whether the tool validates, normalizes, extracts components, or what it returns, leaving important behavioral context incomplete.

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 deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral note with no filler. The sentence 'Parse a Figma file URL' is front-loaded and immediately scopes the tool.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a nine-parameter input schema with zero required parameters, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It omits return semantics, explicit parameter mapping, and differentiation from related URL tools, so an agent must infer too much.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful semantic that the URL is a Figma file URL and that its path is ignored, but it does not explicitly tie this to the 'url' parameter or clarify how the other eight unrelated parameters should be handled.

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 ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape, which target different URL or key formats.

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 this tool is for parsing Figma file URLs, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. In a large sibling list with normalize-url, browser-url-ok, and several shape tools, an agent gets only weak routing cues.

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