Delete a scheduled API-triggered campaign in Braze. Use it to cancel or remove a campaign schedule by providing campaign and schedule IDs.
Delete a scheduled API-triggered campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID | |
| schedule_id | Yes | Schedule ID to delete | |
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not confirm the operation is destructive/irreversible, whether it cancels or merely detaches the schedule, what permissions are required, or what happens if the schedule_id is invalid. The 'API-triggered' qualifier is the only added behavioral hint.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.
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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It omits confirmation of what gets destroyed, authorization requirements, and any post-delete state an agent would need to reason about before calling it.
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%, so the two required IDs and the auth/endpoint parameters are already documented in the schema; this sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema states.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('scheduled API-triggered campaign'), which cleanly separates it from campaigns_schedule_create and campaigns_schedule_update. It does not explicitly name the near-identical siblings canvas_schedule_delete or messages_schedule_delete, but the resource qualifier 'campaign' makes the scope inferable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the campaign must have an existing API-triggered schedule), and no exclusions. The agent must infer everything 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.