delete_previewDelete a Worker preview and its deployments by name, slug, or ID so stale preview environments are removed while production remains unaffected.
Delete a Worker preview and its deployments, by name, slug or id. Production is unaffected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preview | Yes | Preview name, slug or id (from list_previews) | |
| script_name | Yes | The name of the Worker script |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's real contribution is blast radius: it discloses that deployments are deleted along with the preview and that production is untouched. It does not say whether the deletion is reversible or what happens on a repeat call, which leaves minor gaps against the idempotentHint=false signal.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and cascade effect front-loaded and the safety reassurance second. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the two things the agent most needs beyond structured data: what else gets destroyed and what does not. Reversibility is the only notable omission.
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 that 'preview' accepts a name, slug, or id sourced from list_previews. The description repeats that same fact without adding format, resolution-order, or edge-case detail, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a Worker preview and its deployments'), and the mention of 'preview' plus 'Production is unaffected' implicitly separates it from delete_worker and delete_preview-adjacent tools. It stops short of naming a sibling it could be confused with, which keeps it from a 5.
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 clause 'Production is unaffected' gives useful context about when this is safe to run, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over delete_worker, rollback_worker, or list_previews, and no stated prerequisites or confirmation requirements. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.