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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses one behavior, 'Path discarded,' and says nothing about side effects, network access, output format, error behavior, or required permissions. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool, though the single disclosed behavior prevents a score of 1.

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 with no filler: the core action is front-loaded and the caveat follows. It is concise, though 'Path discarded' is a fragment that could have been integrated into a more structured single sentence.

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?

With nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must explain what the parse produces and how the tool behaves. It does not describe return values, which inputs matter, or whether any network access occurs. This leaves a substantial completeness gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not meaningfully add parameter-level detail; 'Figma file URL' maps loosely to the existing `url` parameter, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous between the URL path and the `path` input parameter. It does not clarify which of the nine parameters are actually relevant.

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 verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This distinguishes it from siblings like github-repo-shape, domain-shape, and normalize-url by restricting it to Figma file URLs. The added behavioral note 'Path discarded' provides extra differentiation without restating the tool name.

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 an agent needs to parse a Figma file URL, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The usage context is present only by implication.

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