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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions that the path is discarded, but gives no detail on validation, return value, error behavior, or side effects. The agent is left guessing what 'parse' actually produces.

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 (one short sentence), which is good for front-loading, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 optional parameters. It is not verbose, but it lacks substance, so it only partially meets the conciseness ideal.

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 tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context: it does not explain what the tool returns, how to invoke it, what 'parse' means, or how it relates to the schema. This is critically incomplete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about which parameter is the Figma URL or how parameters relate to the tool's purpose; it merely repeats the notion of parsing without tying it to 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 states a specific verb (Parse) and resource (Figma file URL), and adds a behavioral note (Path discarded). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from generic URL tools like normalize-url, though it does not name a sibling or clarify the output of parsing.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-check or URL tools (domain-shape, github-repo-shape, browser-url-ok). It does not mention alternatives, conditions, or exclusions.

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