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 only says the path is discarded; it does not state whether parsing is local or network-backed, what output is returned, whether other parameters are ignored, or whether there are side effects. This is too little for an unannotated tool.

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: two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying behavior about the path follows immediately. 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?

Despite having 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not explain what the agent should pass, what the tool returns, or how it relates to the many sibling tools. The schema provides some parameter detail, but the tool-level context is not sufficient for reliable invocation.

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 little beyond the schema: 'Path discarded' restates the existing path parameter description, and it does not clarify which of the 9 optional parameters is the relevant Figma URL or why unrelated parameters like city, feed, json, and zone are present.

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 and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' It also adds a scoping detail, 'Path discarded,' which clarifies what is ignored. The Figma reference clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github-repo-shape, domain-shape, and normalize-url.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other shape-check tools. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'Parse a Figma file URL,' so the agent gets no exclusions or decision rules.

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