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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses only that the path is discarded, but says nothing about what parsing entails, what is returned, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks the minimal context needed to invoke the tool correctly, so the brevity does not add value.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single sentence is completely inadequate. The tool does not explain which parameter to use, what 'shape' checking means, or what the result looks like. This is a serious completeness failure.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not clarify which of the 9 parameters is the Figma URL. The 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which conflicts with the tool's stated Figma-specific purpose. The mention of 'Path discarded' also muddles the 'path' parameter, which is described as a file path, not a URL path.

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 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' identifies a specific verb and resource, and notes a behavioral detail (path discarded). It is distinguishable from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking tools (normalize-url, file-path-ok, github-repo-shape). The description gives no context about input selection or conditions.

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