Merge one user profile into another to combine data from the merged user into the target user.
Merge one user profile into another. Data from the merged user will be combined into the target user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key (optional if set via env/header) | |
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL | |
| merge_updates | Yes | Array of merge operations |
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 burden. It hints at the outcome ('data ... will be combined into the target user') but never states that the merged profile is consumed/destroyed, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or the batch limit (maxItems 50). For an irreversible mutation, that is a significant disclosure 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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the operation and following with the behavioral consequence. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 an irreversible multi-user mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain authentication needs, irreversibility, and batch limits. It covers only the basic data-flow direction, leaving an agent under-informed before calling.
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 schema already documents apiKey, restEndpoint, and the merge_updates structure. The description's 'merged user' vs 'target user' phrasing loosely maps to identifier_to_merge/identifier_to_keep, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 (merge) and resource (user profile) and clarifies the direction of the merge: source data flows into the target. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like users_delete or users_alias_update, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 merge versus deleting, aliasing, or identifying a user, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.