Validate Slide Copy (Anti-Slop Engine)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance about the three validation passes, though its phrase 'loại bỏ từ sáo rỗng' (remove clichés) reads like mutation and sits awkwardly against readOnlyHint — it is probably meant as 'flag/detect'. It also says nothing about what a validation result looks like, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 no filler; the three checks are enumerated compactly and the standard is named up front. Slight density from mixed jargon ('Taste-Skill', 'Hard Facts', 'Word Budget') but nothing is wasted.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what comes back — a pass/fail verdict, a list of offending phrases, a word-count report — and it does not. Annotations cover safety and the single parameter is fully documented, so the remaining gap is the return contract and workflow placement.

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 required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already describing 'texts' as the list of slide text blocks (title, card, content). The description adds no format, ordering, or granularity guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb and resource: quality-validate slide copy against a named 'Taste-Skill' standard, with three concrete checks (AI slop removal, Hard Facts, Word Budget). That is far more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-scoped sibling canva_audit_entire_deck (deck-level vs. copy-level), leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 says what the tool checks but never when to call it — e.g. before export, after generation, or as a pre-flight gate — nor when to prefer canva_audit_entire_deck or canva_auto_fix_from_comment. An agent must guess the workflow position of this tool.

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