Update an existing Braze content block by changing its name, content, tags, or state using the content block ID.
Update an existing content block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name | |
| tags | No | New tags | |
| state | No | New state | |
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| content | No | New content | |
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL | |
| content_block_id | Yes | Content block ID to update |
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 only that an existing block is updated, but does not disclose whether this is a partial or full replacement, what permissions or authentication are required, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects occur. It conveys mutation but no meaningful behavioral traits.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for what it attempts to convey, even though it is under-specified elsewhere.
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?
Given a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks essential context about authentication requirements, update semantics, and consequences, making this definition inadequate for safe invocation.
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 all 7 parameters (including content_block_id, name, tags, state, apiKey, content, restEndpoint) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline when the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Update') and resource ('content block'), making the core action unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like content_blocks_create, content_blocks_info, or content_blocks_list, so an agent gets no routing help beyond the verb.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (such as needing an existing content block ID or API credentials), and no exclusions. The description offers no usage guidance at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.