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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that — the call is "Free" (no credit cost) and the return shape is {ok} — but stays silent on whether the operation is idempotent or errors when no share link exists.

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 opening line is front-loaded and the Args/Returns block is minimal and scannable. The restatement of library_id's origin is the only redundant text.

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 one-parameter toggle with no output schema and annotations covering the destructive profile, the definition is largely self-sufficient. The remaining gaps are edge-case behavior (not shared, already unshared) rather than blockers for a correct call.

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%, and the description's "library_id: from library_list" duplicates the schema's "The generationId from library_list" almost verbatim. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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?

"Turn off the public share link of one WEB Library item" gives a specific verb (turn off), resource (public share link), and scope (one item). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling library_share, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent can infer to call this when a link should stop being public. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over library_delete or what to do if the item was never shared, and no stated prerequisites such as ownership.

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