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

The only behavioral detail is 'Path discarded', which hints that the URL path is ignored, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs network access, returns a shape object, or has side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides insufficient detail.

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 extremely short and contains no fluff, making it easy to read. The brevity is acceptable, though it sacrifices useful context that could be included without much extra length.

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?

There is no output schema, no return-value explanation, no error semantics, and no mention of which parameter is actually used. The tool is under-specified for an agent to use reliably, especially given the confusing schema.

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?

The schema lists nine unrelated parameters, and most descriptions are generic or explicitly say they are discarded. The 'url' description says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which does not match the Figma-specific purpose, and there is no clear mapping between the tool intent and the parameters.

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 identifies the target resource ('Figma file URL') and a clear operation ('Parse'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it does not explain what kind of parsed result is produced or how this tool differs from sibling URL/shape tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, domain-shape, or github-repo-shape. The description also does not mention required inputs, limitations, or failure conditions.

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