Update a previously scheduled Braze message by schedule ID to change its send time, local/optimal timing, or content before delivery.
Update a previously scheduled message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| messages | No | ||
| schedule | Yes | ||
| schedule_id | Yes | Schedule ID to update | |
| 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 nothing about authentication requirements, whether the update is a full replacement or partial patch, what happens to existing schedule fields not supplied, or any side effects or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is a severe 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?
The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is so minimal that it barely earns its place. It avoids verbosity yet fails to provide meaningful content, making it adequate but clearly under-specified.
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 no output schema, no annotations, five parameters including nested objects, and only a one-line description, the definition is grossly incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to safely invoke this mutation tool.
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 60%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The nested 'messages' object and the required 'schedule' object remain unexplained, leaving the agent to infer structure from the schema alone where descriptions are absent.
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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('a previously scheduled message'), making the basic purpose intelligible. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling schedule-update tools such as campaigns_schedule_update or canvas_schedule_update, so an agent cannot tell them apart without opening schemas.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like messages_schedule_create or messages_schedule_delete, nor any prerequisites or context for invocation. The description merely restates the action without helping the agent choose this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.