Remove a custom font by providing its font family name. Use it to clean up unused fonts or replace outdated font families in your Templated account.
Delete a custom font
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| font_name | Yes | The font family name to delete, as returned by list_fonts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the 'custom' scope constraint; it says nothing about irreversibility, whether renders using the font are affected, or any confirmation requirement.
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?
Four words, front-loaded verb+object, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 operation with full schema coverage and annotations declaring the destructive profile, the minimum needed to invoke correctly is present. It falls short only on consequences and downstream effects, which a destructive tool would ideally mention.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents font_name with a pointer to list_fonts as the source of valid values. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (custom font), and the 'custom' qualifier usefully narrows scope to user-uploaded fonts rather than built-ins. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling delete_* tools, but the resource name is distinct enough to disambiguate.
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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about consequences despite it being an irreversible destructive operation. The only guidance is implicit from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.