Publish an agent's DID Document (writes to the ledger)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool writes to the ledger, spends XRP, uses an OS keychain seed, is gated by --allow-writes, and refuses inline seeds unless --allow-inline-seed is set. These are exactly the safety and permission details an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

Front-loads the critical fact that this writes to the ledger and spends XRP, then layers in seed and network constraints. Slightly repetitive on seed security, but overall efficient and well structured.

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?

Covers the operational and safety context thoroughly, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for a write tool with 0% schema coverage, the omission of address and document_uri semantics leaves an important gap in invocation completeness.

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 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It explains seed and network behavior well, but never explains address, which is required, or document_uri, leaving two parameters undocumented.

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 and resource: submit a DIDSet transaction so the agent's DID resolves to a DID Document. It also makes the distinction from read-oriented siblings like resolve_did clear by emphasizing that this writes to the ledger.

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 usage context: only available when the server was started with --allow-writes, defaults to testnet, and requires explicit network='mainnet' for mainnet. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as derive_did or resolve_did, but the write-versus-read distinction is clear.

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