Update existing Braze user aliases by changing the alias name tied to a given alias label to maintain accurate user profiles.
Update existing user aliases. Changes the alias_name for a given alias_label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key (optional if set via env/header) | |
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL | |
| alias_updates | Yes | Array of alias updates |
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, yet it only restates that a name is changed. It says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, error behavior for a non-existent label, or the batch limit (which lives only in the schema). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the specific field change. No filler or redundancy.
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?
A write operation with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a one-line restatement. Missing permission requirements, behavior on invalid labels, and response expectations leave the agent under-informed despite the schema covering parameters.
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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the old_alias_name/new_alias_name relationship at a conceptual level but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already documents.
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 and resource ("Update existing user aliases") and clarifies the operation changes alias_name for a given alias_label. The word "existing" implicitly separates it from users_alias_new, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives like users_alias_new or users_external_id_rename. The only hint is "existing," which is inference rather than stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.