identity_set_uri

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the wallet-unlock and authorization requirements, but it does not explain the on-chain transaction nature, fee implications, or whether the URI update replaces existing metadata.

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 core update sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the closing earning_opportunities tip is unrelated to invoking this identity update tool and dilutes the otherwise concise definition.

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 covers the essential action and prerequisites, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain transaction behavior, expected outcomes, and distinction from related identity-setting tools.

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%, so the schema already documents agentId, uri, fee, and sponsored. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already available in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update the URI for an agent identity in the ERC-8004 identity registry. It is clear enough to distinguish from broader identity tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like identity_set_metadata.

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?

It provides prerequisites (unlocked wallet, owner/operator authorization), which helps determine readiness. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus related identity tools or when not to use it, and the earning_opportunities tip is not an alternative for this action.

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