Keynote: review deck

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the environment prerequisite (macOS + Keynote), the error-vs-warning severity split, and the fact that the deck is rendered to PDF rather than inspected abstractly. 'The file isn't changed' largely restates readOnlyHint, so it falls short of a 5.

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 and information-dense, but it repeats itself: 'Run it after building or restyling a deck, fix the errors' and 'Use after building or restyling a deck, before saying it's done; fix every error' say the same thing, and keynote_slide_image is named twice. Roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, environment needs, severity semantics, and workflow placement. Slightly thin on whether the review is limited to text/geometry (no mention of images, charts, or theme issues), but otherwise complete for a single-param read 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?

Only one parameter (path) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents accepted path forms (absolute or ~). The description adds nothing about the path argument itself, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Design review of a deck as Keynote actually draws it') and enumerates exactly what it reports: off-slide/overflow text, overlapping boxes, small type, density. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like keynote_slide_image (viewport rendering) and iwork_verify_render (single-word render check).

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('after building or restyling a deck, before saying it's done'), the follow-up action ('fix every error'), and two named alternatives with the conditions that select them (keynote_slide_image for a flagged slide, iwork_verify_render for a word).

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