Delete an entire Braze catalog and all of its items by specifying the catalog name. Use this to remove outdated or unwanted catalog data from your Braze workspace.
Delete a catalog and all its items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| catalog_name | Yes | Catalog name 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 behavioral burden. It says it deletes 'all its items' – a cascading destructive effect – but does not state irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects on dependent resources. After the deletion, dependent catalogs items or references may break, and this is not disclosed. The description is minimal for a destructive operation.
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?
One short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and efficiently states the cascading scope. There is zero waste or filler.
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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits any warning about irrevocability, permission requirements, or downstream effects, and gives no guidance on when this should be used versus deleting individual items. An agent could easily misuse this tool without additional context.
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%, so each parameter (apiKey, catalog_name, restEndpoint) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description provides no extra parameter semantics.
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 ('catalog') and clarifies scope ('and all its items'). It distinguishes itself from item-level siblings like catalog_items_delete and catalog_item_delete by operating on the catalog itself. It doesn't claim catalog-only vs. sibling nuances beyond that, but the verb+resource is 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is given. It doesn't explain the destructive, cascading nature of the deletion, nor does it clarify prerequisites (e.g., whether the catalog must be empty or have no items). An agent has no indication of when this is appropriate versus editing items individually.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.