Add SWOT Matrix Slide (Step 1 Layout)

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: fixed per-quadrant colors, auto-aligned margins, a minimum 24pt body font, and a hardcoded presenter badge at 44pt Cyan #00B0F0. It does not disclose the write surface, i.e. that content is written into the .pptx at presentation_path and that the slide is placed at slide_number, nor whether an existing slide there is replaced or pushed down.

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?

It is a single very dense sentence that front-loads the verb and artifact, which is good, but it chains many visual specs together without structure and redundantly restates the presenter badge value 'Lê Anh Duy (44pt, Cyan #00B0F0)' that already lives in the schema default and description. Nothing is filler, yet the packing makes the color/typography rules hard to scan.

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 mutation tool with 12 parameters, 5 required and no output schema, the description covers what the slide looks like but not the operation's effect on the deck: insertion vs. overwrite at slide_number, whether export_thumbnail writes an extra artifact, or that a local .pptx path is modified. An agent could construct the call but would be guessing about side effects.

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% across 12 parameters, so the schema already explains title, the four bullet arrays, presenter, palette_id, and presentation_path; the baseline is therefore 3. The description reinforces content semantics by mapping each quadrant to a color, but adds no constraints beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't reconcile the fixed green/red/blue/amber colors with palette_id='corporate-navy', which is a latent ambiguity an agent could trip on).

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 concrete verb and artifact: 'Dựng ma trận 4 ô (2x2 Grid) bo góc' with four color-coded SWOT quadrants, which is clearly distinct from sibling layout tools such as canva_add_card_comparison or canva_add_split_architecture. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it replaces, so an agent must infer the SWOT-vs-other-layout choice from the name alone.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears in the description; the only signal is the title's '(Step 1 Layout)' marker, which implies this is the first step of a deck-building workflow. It never states prerequisites (e.g., that a deck/presentation_path must already exist) or what to call for non-SWOT slides.

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