Delete a scheduled API-triggered Canvas to prevent unwanted messages. Use canvas_id and schedule_id to remove the schedule.
Delete a scheduled API-triggered Canvas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| canvas_id | Yes | Canvas 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Delete' but never states that the schedule is removed while the Canvas itself survives, that the deletion is irreversible, or whether special permissions/API key scopes are required. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive tool rather than being an example of well-packed conciseness.
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, two-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: scope of destruction (schedule only vs. Canvas), irreversibility, and auth/permission expectations. An agent could call it correctly, but would do so without knowing the consequences.
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% (canvas_id, schedule_id, apiKey, restEndpoint all documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond what the schema already spells out.
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 (a scheduled API-triggered Canvas), and the resource name distinguishes it from the sibling campaigns_schedule_delete and messages_schedule_delete. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource specificity makes selection unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (campaigns_schedule_delete, messages_schedule_delete) or of canvas_schedule_update as a non-destructive path. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.