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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one behavioral quirk ('Path discarded'), but it fails to mention whether the tool validates, extracts data, errors on non-Figma URLs, or has side effects. For a parsing tool this is minimal and insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The second sentence adds a relevant behavioral detail about discarding the path. There is no waste, though the terseness leaves room for more useful guidance.

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 the 9-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It doesn't identify the key input field, define the output shape, clarify 'discarded' semantics, or explain how this differs from other URL-related siblings. The description is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 even without additional parameter info in the tool description. The description doesn't add meaning to the parameters, and the mismatch between the generic 'url' parameter description and the Figma-specific purpose weakens clarity, but the schema itself is present and documented.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Parse a Figma file URL') and a specific resource type (Figma file URLs), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. However, it doesn't specify which input parameter carries the URL or what 'parse' produces, so there is some ambiguity in how to invoke it.

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 choose this tool over alternatives like browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or normalize-url. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer suitability solely from the name.

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