codex_preset_deleteDelete a named preset from the instance and its presets file, failing with an error if the preset name does not exist.
Remove a preset from this instance and from its presets file. Fails if no preset of that name exists, rather than reporting success for a name that was never there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Preset to delete. Fails if no preset of that name exists. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant behavior beyond that: the preset is removed from a persistent file, and the operation fails rather than falsely succeeding if the name does not exist. This failure mode is critical for an agent to predict outcomes correctly.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. The first sentence states scope and persistence; the second clarifies the error behavior, which earns its place by preventing a common false-success expectation.
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 single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, the persistence effect, and failure behavior. Annotations already convey destructive intent, so an agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'name' parameter. The description repeats the failure condition but does not add any new parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline of 3.
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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource ('a preset') and the scope ('from this instance and from its presets file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_preset_set, codex_preset_update, and codex_preset_list without needing to open them.
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 makes clear that the tool is for deleting a preset and that the preset must already exist, which is a clear context for use. It does not explicitly name siblings or say when not to use it, but no exclusions are needed for a straightforward delete operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.