Schedule API-triggered Canvas sends for future delivery by defining send time, audience, and recipients.
Schedule an API-triggered Canvas for future delivery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| audience | No | ||
| schedule | Yes | ||
| broadcast | No | ||
| canvas_id | Yes | API-triggered Canvas ID | |
| recipients | No | ||
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It contributes only the fact that the Canvas must be API-triggered; it says nothing about required API key/permissions, idempotency, behavior when a schedule already exists, or reversibility. For a scheduling mutation with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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 the verb and resource first and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.
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?
With 7 parameters, nested objects, 43% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do meaningful work but does not. An agent cannot determine prerequisites (API-triggered Canvas, auth), scheduling conflict behavior, or parameter usage from 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 description coverage is only 43% across 7 parameters, including nested audience, recipients, and schedule objects, so the burden falls on the description. The description explains none of them — it does not clarify broadcast vs recipients, the schedule.time format, or how canvas_id relates to 'API-triggered'.
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 ('Schedule an API-triggered Canvas') plus the outcome ('future delivery'), which implicitly separates it from the immediate-send canvas_trigger_send and from canvas_schedule_update/delete siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The phrase 'for future delivery' hints that this is the deferred counterpart to canvas_trigger_send, but the agent is left to infer that routing, and nothing states prerequisites or when to prefer update vs create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.