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 reveals that the path is discarded, which is useful, but it does not say whether the tool validates, normalizes, extracts a file key, errors on non-Figma URLs, or has any 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 compact: two short phrases with no filler. The core action and one key behavior are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with 0 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-line description is far from sufficient: it does not explain which parameter is the Figma URL, how the generic schema relates to the tool, what the result looks like, or what happens for invalid input.

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. The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not identify which of the 9 generic schema parameters should carry the Figma URL, so it adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), and the 'Path discarded' detail adds a distinguishing behavioral note. It is clear enough to separate this from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or normalize-url, though it does not state what a successful parse returns.

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 intended context is implied: use this when you have a Figma file URL to parse. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative sibling to choose for other URL shapes or normalizations.

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