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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, and the description meaningfully extends them by scoping the destruction: only the public link stops working while 'the app itself stays in the Library.' It also discloses the underlying DELETE endpoint, so the agent understands exactly what is and is not removed.

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?

Three short clauses with the primary effect front-loaded, the non-destructive scope next, and the endpoint last. No sentence is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies everything needed: the trigger, the resulting state change, what is preserved, and the underlying endpoint.

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% and the single assetId parameter is already documented as 'the assetId of a shared web app.' The description's endpoint template confirms assetId is a path parameter but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (stop sharing) and resource (a published web app), and its effect is the exact inverse of the sibling muse_share_web_app, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema. The added endpoint 'DELETE /assets/{assetId}/share' reinforces the operation unambiguously.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it — when you want a published web app's public link to stop working — but names no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition (e.g., versus muse_delete_asset). The usage is strongly implied rather than spelled out.

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