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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Path discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not reveal whether network access is made, what counts as a valid Figma URL, what side effects exist, or what the parse returns. This is insufficient for a tool with nine accepted parameters and no safety hints.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It loses a point because 'Path discarded' is so compressed that it is more cryptic than informative, reducing the clarity gained by brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, no required fields, and nine accepted parameters, the description leaves critical details unstated. An agent does not know what the output means, which parameter is mandatory, or how this tool compares to normalize-url and the browser-check siblings. It is too incomplete for reliable selection and 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 of 3 applies. The tool description does not meaningfully supplement the input schema; it does not identify 'url' as the main property, and 'Path discarded' does not clearly map to any parameter semantics. It stays at the baseline.

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 and resource—'parse a Figma file URL'—which clearly distinguishes this from sibling shape-check tools such as github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, and domain-check. It loses a point because the 'Path discarded' sentence makes the actual result or scope of parsing unclear.

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 an implied usage context: use this tool when you need to parse or check a Figma file URL. However, the description never explains when not to use it, and it names no alternatives or related tools, so an agent gets no explicit routing guidance.

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