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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says 'Parse' and 'Path discarded.' It does not disclose what parsing produces, whether any network call occurs, how invalid URLs are handled, or that most of the input schema parameters appear unrelated and are likely ignored.

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, with the main action front-loaded: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The second sentence, 'Path discarded,' is terse but not necessarily redundant; however, its ambiguity slightly reduces clarity while keeping the text compact.

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 nine generic parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain return values, which parameter to provide, how to distinguish this from sibling tools, or what 'parse' means in terms of validation or normalization.

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. The description does add a Figma-specific framing, but it does not clarify which of the nine schema properties should be used for the Figma URL, and 'Path discarded' adds little beyond the schema's own 'discarded after the check' note.

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 distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous—it could refer to the URL path or the separate 'path' parameter—so it is clear but not fully precise.

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 usage when a Figma file URL needs parsing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so guidance is only implied.

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