Add Tasteful Slide (9 Layouts + Anti-Slop + Auto-Thumbnail)

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

Annotations already establish non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description discloses a genuine side effect not captured in annotations: automatic export of a PNG preview thumbnail into Artifacts. It still omits critical behavior for a write tool: which file is written, whether an existing slide at slide_number is overwritten, and whether the slide is appended to a deck or created in isolation.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then stacks the differentiators; nothing is repeated. It is dense and contains soft marketing adjectives ("cao cấp") that slightly dilute an otherwise efficient statement.

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 22 parameters but only 2 required and full schema description coverage per layout, the description carries the right amount: the design-system constraints, the layout set, and the thumbnail side effect. The remaining details (which layout parameters to supply) live correctly in the schema, and no output schema needs explaining.

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%, and the schema itself labels each layout-specific parameter with its target layout ("Dùng cho bố cục card_comparison", etc.), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the palette-source and minimum-font conventions, not per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Tạo hoặc nâng cấp slide trình chiếu") and adds distinctive attributes: 57 palettes from taste-skill, Anti-Slop copy rules, >=24pt minimum type, 9 layout types, auto thumbnail export. The purpose is unmistakable. However, it never distinguishes this unified tool from the many layout-specific siblings (canva_add_kpi_dashboard, canva_add_card_comparison, canva_add_swot_matrix, canva_add_team_grid, canva_add_process_timeline, canva_add_split_architecture), which cover overlapping ground.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent is not told whether to prefer this consolidated tool or the per-layout siblings, nor under what conditions. The phrase "Tạo hoặc nâng cấp" implies both creation and modification but does not say how upgrade mode is triggered or what identifies the slide to upgrade.

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