roam_create_outline

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (which are all false) by disclosing that the tool 'performs verification queries after creation' and warns about the risk of duplicate blocks if the parent block's text is included in the outline array. It also clarifies that the outline parameter defines new blocks, which is key behavioral context. However, it does not mention idempotency failure behavior or partial-failure details, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 longer than strictly necessary but well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bulleted 'Best for' list, and a separate API Usage Note. Each section adds value without redundancy, and the most essential information is front-loaded. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to its length, though it remains focused.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested outline structure), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage alternatives, API rate-limit implications, common use cases, and even a prerequisite instruction (call roam_get_guidelines). The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values, so there are no significant gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic nuances beyond the schema, particularly for the `outline` parameter: it explains that levels are relative to the parent block, and warns against including the parent block's text. This extra guidance helps prevent common usage errors.

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 tool's function: 'Add a structured outline to an existing page or block (by title text or uid), with customizable nesting levels.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `roam_create_page` by explicitly noting that tool should be used for creating new pages with outlines. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To create a new page with an outline, use the `roam_create_page` tool instead' and 'For complex nesting (e.g., tables) or granular control over block placement, consider `roam_process_batch_actions` instead.' It also includes a 'Best for' list and a clear exclusion criterion, making the decision process straightforward.

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