Remove email addresses from the hard bounce list to resume sending to those recipients. Specify a single email or multiple emails.
Remove email addresses from the hard bounce list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Single email to remove | ||
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| emails | No | Multiple emails to remove (max 50) | |
| 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. It states a destructive removal but not the consequences: whether the removal is reversible, whether it re-enables sending to previously bounced addresses, whose permission is required, or whether it is rate limited.
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 no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing behavioral detail rather than an asset.
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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, reversibility, error behavior, and the choice between the single-email and multi-email modes, leaving the agent to infer behavior from parameter names alone.
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 the parameters (email, emails with max 50, apiKey, restEndpoint) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb (Remove) plus resource (email addresses) and target scope (hard bounce list), which is easily distinguished from close siblings like email_spam_remove and email_blocklist. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast those siblings.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never states prerequisites (Braze REST API key and endpoint are required by the schema) or when an agent should prefer this over email_hard_bounces (inspection) or email_blocklist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.