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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses one detail ('Path discarded') but omits what the tool actually returns, whether it makes network calls, or its safety profile. The agent cannot infer the outcome or side effects.

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 (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary detail about behavior, return value, and usage. The single sentence does provide the key point (parses Figma URL, discards path) but is not appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations.

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?

The description is severely incomplete. No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention the result format, the effect of the other parameters, or the tool's relationship to sibling tools. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on the provided information.

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 schema documents each parameter, but the descriptions are generic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and do not tie to the tool's Figma-specific purpose. The tool description adds no clarity about which parameters are relevant — only 'url' seems plausible, but the others (city, feed, json, etc.) are unrelated and unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of tool-specific parameter guidance.

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 names a specific resource (Figma file URL) and an action (parse), but 'parse' is vague — it does not clarify whether the tool validates, extracts components, or returns a boolean. It does not differentiate from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or file-path-ok.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about when to prefer figma-url-shape over normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and does not state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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