ack_create_did_web

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (creating a DID URI) and the resolution requirement for the resulting DID, but it does not specify whether the tool performs any validation, makes network calls, or what the exact output format is. It implies a pure string transformation without stating so explicitly. No contradictions exist.

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 description is two sentences long, with the primary action stated first, followed by usage context and a key prerequisite. There is no redundant phrasing, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key environmental requirement, but it leaves ambiguity about whether the tool itself validates the .well-known/did.json file or how it handles malformed URLs. It does not explicitly state the return value, though it is inferable from the purpose. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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% (the url parameter is described with an example). The description adds context that the URL is for web-hosted subjects, but it does not explain how the URL is transformed into a DID (e.g., path mapping rules, protocol normalization). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's own description.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a did:web DID URI') and the resource (a DID derived from a URL). It explicitly mentions the did:web method, which distinguishes it from the sibling ack_create_did_pkh. The scope is well-defined: 'from a URL' and 'agents or services hosted at a known web address.'

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?

The description gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use for agents or services hosted at a known web address.' It also notes a prerequisite (the domain must host .well-known/did.json), which guides correct use. However, it does not contrast with alternative DID creation tools (e.g., ack_create_did_pkh) or state when not to use this tool, so it's not a full routing guide.

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