Delete an account'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 burden and does so: it flags that this WRITES TO THE LEDGER and spends XRP, explains the seed is read from the OS keychain and never enters the agent context, and clarifies that credentials are untouched by rippled's DIDDelete.

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-loaded with the write-cost warning, then scope, then the credential caveat, then the availability/seed note. Every paragraph earns its place, though the seed explanation could be tighter and the title already signals the write-to-ledger aspect.

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?

A destructive ledger mutation with no annotations; the description covers cost, authorization scope, seed handling, availability and the credential/DID distinction. It stops short of saying the ledger write is irreversible or explaining the network parameter, but an output schema exists so return values need no coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for address (must match the signer's account) and seed (keychain-sourced, server-read), but the network parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 the specific verb, resource and mechanism: submits a DIDDelete transaction that removes the account's DID Document from the ledger. The final paragraph also distinguishes it from sibling revoke_credential by explicitly scoping what it does not delete.

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?

Names the precondition (server must be started with --allow-writes), states the constraint that the address must match the account the seed controls, and routes the agent to revoke_credential when the goal is withdrawing an authorization.

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