Remove one or up to 50 phone numbers from Braze's invalid phone list to keep SMS reach accurate and avoid sending to undeliverable numbers.
Remove phone numbers from the invalid phone list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | No | Single phone number to remove | |
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| phones | No | Multiple phone numbers 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it doesn't say whether removal is reversible, whether operation is idempotent, what happens to numbers not on the list, or that an apiKey/restEndpoint pair is needed for auth. Only the bare mutation is conveyed.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is appropriately sized but arguably under-specified rather than padded.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and no required-parameter declaration, the description should explain auth expectations, batch limits/partial-failure behavior, and whether a removed number can be re-added. None of this is present, so an agent must guess at operational behavior.
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 phone, phones (max 50), apiKey and restEndpoint are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and notably omits any hint about the phone-vs-phones relationship (single vs batch), which the schema lists as two independent properties.
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 (remove) and resource (phone numbers from the invalid phone list), which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling sms_invalid_phones list tool. However, it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly, leaving differentiation to inference.
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 versus the sibling sms_invalid_phones (list) or email counterparts like email_bounce_remove/email_spam_remove. No prerequisites, no mention that a phone must already be on the invalid list, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.