Create up to 20 knowledge base documents in a single request, defining content, URLs, tags, metadata, and source type per document for batch agent knowledge setup.
Create up to 20 KB documents in one request. For many website URLs prefer create_kb_from_urls. For a single doc use create_kb_doc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docs | Yes | ||
| agentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The only added detail, the 20-item cap, is already in the schema via maxItems=20; nothing is said about partial-batch failure, per-item error handling, or whether URL/sitemap sources are fetched asynchronously. Adequate but not additive.
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 with zero filler; the capability and its constraint come first, then the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place and nothing is 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 batch mutation with a nested item schema, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent would want before calling: how results are reported for 20 items, what happens if some docs fail, and what each doc object field means. The routing to siblings is complete, but the invocation-side context is thin.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does not: it never explains that `docs` is an array of objects requiring at minimum a `name`, nor what `sourceType` (doc/url/sitemap), `urls`, `content`, `tags` or `metadata` do. It also says nothing about `agentId`, the required target. The only hint is the phrase "up to 20", which merely restates maxItems.
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 ("Create ... KB documents") plus the scope of the operation ("up to 20 ... in one request"). The two following sentences explicitly name the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from create_kb_doc and create_kb_from_urls without opening any schema.
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?
Gives explicit routing rules: many website URLs → create_kb_from_urls; a single doc → create_kb_doc. Both the when-to-use-this and the when-to-use-something-else cases are covered, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.