I think there is only deception if you believe the original words written in the original tone was the intended message (or I suppose if the intent of the communication is to demonstrate your personal ability to write in a given style). If a coworker does something extremely stupid that harms our project and I sit down at my desk and write an angry email full of invective and spit and fury, save it in my drafts and go for a walk, then come back and rewrite the email to be constructive and professional, have I been deceptive? When I started the email I certainly intended to write the things I wrote in that first draft. But sending that would have been counter productive.
I might even still think my co-worker is a flaming moron who shouldn't be allowed out of the house unsupervised. But if I know that sending that in an email isn't going to solve anything and just make things worse, am I being deceptive if I remove that sentence from the email?
Or consider an alternative scenario. I attended a conference where a speaker made a reference to the Alamo. The speaker was older, and the reference would have been the same sort of "make a stand" reference any number of speakers would have made over and over in the 90's. But after their talk, I was talking with some younger attendees, folks born after the turn of the millennium. Among them, the speaker's metaphor was a hot topic. Specifically the "yikes" factor of referencing the Alamo in any way that in any way implied the defenders should have been looked up to. The speaker's intended message was lost in the specific details of their chosen metaphor because the words which they absolutely intended to speak did not hold the same meaning for the audience to which they were spoken. If some hypothetical AI speech editor existed where you could punch in the age range of your intended audience and it would edit out metaphors and references that would land wrong with the audience, is that being deceptive or is that good editing and "reading the room"?