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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the path is discarded, a useful note, but it fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, what it returns on success or failure, or how it treats the other eight input fields—all of which matter for a tool with this many parameters.

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 consists of two short sentences with the action front-loaded ('Parse a Figma file URL.') and the contextual note ('Path discarded.') immediately after. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, fluff, or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

Despite the 9-parameter schema and no output schema, the description only gives a terse instruction and a single behavioral note. It omits the return value, error handling, and any distinction from related URL/shape tools, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly without further inference.

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 already describes all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial Figma-specific meaning for the 'url' parameter, which the schema's generic 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' lacks, but it does not clarify the roles of the other eight parameters or confirm which are actually relevant to the tool's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), which clearly identifies the tool's core function and distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape. However, it doesn't specify what 'parse' yields—a validation result, a normalized URL, or extracted fields—so the purpose is clear but not fully elaborated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other *-shape siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent here.

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