Audit Entire Presentation Deck (Taste Quality Inspector)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value by listing the audit criteria and stating that a Deck Taste Score (/100) is computed, but it does not say how findings are surfaced (per-slide violation list vs single summary), nor explain the hard-coded presenter-badge rule that references a specific person's name.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of checks - dense and free of filler. The only cost is insider jargon ('AI slop', 'Hard Facts', 'Deck Taste Score') that is never defined, plus the description being in Vietnamese while the tool name and title are English.

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 read-only single-parameter audit this is close to adequate, and the mention of a /100 score partially compensates for the missing output schema. Still, an agent cannot predict the shape of the audit result or whether findings are actionable text it can feed into canva_auto_fix_from_comment, which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is producing a report.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents presentation_path as the .pptx file path. The description adds nothing about path constraints, relative vs absolute paths, or what happens if the file is not a .pptx. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 gives a specific verb (quét/rà soát) plus the exact resource (all slides in the presentation) and enumerates the concrete checks: font sizes under 24pt, AI-slop wording, presenter badge, Hard Facts figures, and a Deck Taste Score out of 100. That is far more specific than the name alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from a close sibling like canva_validate_slide_copy, so the agent must infer the difference between a whole-deck audit and copy validation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated checks suggest this is the final quality pass over an already-generated deck. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no exclusions (e.g. run after canva_add_tasteful_slide or instead of canva_validate_slide_copy), and no mention of prerequisites such as the deck having been generated by this toolset.

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