roam_create_page

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and no idempotency/destructive hints. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the tool 'batches page and content creation efficiently' and requiring the user to consult guidelines beforehand. However, it does not disclose edge-case behaviors such as what happens if the page already exists, which would be useful for a creation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a 'Best for' list, an efficiency tip, and an important prerequisite note. It is slightly longer than necessary (the best-for list has some overlap), but every section earns its place and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 moderate complexity (nested content arrays, table support, headings) and the detailed input schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the structure of content, highlights the ability to mix text and tables, and gives usage boundaries. It could mention conflict behavior for existing pages, but overall it is quite complete for a creation tool.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema carries the burden. The description restates general capabilities (outlines, tables, headings) but does not add specific parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already explains. Thus the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Create a new standalone page in Roam with optional content, including structured outlines and tables, using explicit nesting levels and headings (H1-H3).' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the preferred method for creating a new page with an outline in a single step' and contrasts with roam_process_batch_actions for adding content to existing pages.

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 when-to-use guidance through a 'Best for:' list covering foundational pages, new namespaces, reference materials, and permanent collections. It also gives an exclusion: 'For adding content to existing pages, use roam_process_batch_actions instead,' and includes a prerequisite instruction to call roam_get_guidelines and load the Markdown Cheatsheet before using.

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