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 say whether the tool mutates anything, makes network requests, returns a boolean or parsed object, or fails on invalid input. This is too shallow for a tool embedded in a larger family of validators.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specification rather than disciplined concision. The tool has nine heterogeneous parameters and siblings that overlap with the stated purpose, yet the description only gives one sentence plus a fragment, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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 description is not complete enough for the tool's complexity: nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation. The schema partially compensates by documenting each param, but the description does not connect those params to the core 'Figma file URL' purpose or to the discarded-path behavior in a useful way.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no real parameter meaning beyond 'Path discarded', which vaguely connects to one of the nine parameters. The schema descriptions already carry the semantics for each field.

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 the verb 'Parse' and the resource 'Figma file URL', which is specific enough to separate this from most URL siblings. It also mentions that the path is discarded, so an agent gets one explicit behavioral detail. However, it does not specify what a parsed result looks like, leaving the purpose slightly incomplete.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternative routing, and no distinction from sibling tools such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or the other *-shape tools. There are no exclusion criteria or hints about which tool is appropriate instead of this one.

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