Add multiple property values to an existing entity in a single operation. Update structured knowledge efficiently by batching value additions for any entity in the Geo knowledge graph.
Add multiple property values to an existing entity in one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | Yes | Values to add | |
| entityId | Yes | ID of the entity to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=false annotation already indicates this is a mutating operation, so the description's main added value is clarifying that multiple values can be added in a single call and that the target entity must already exist. It does not disclose whether existing property values are replaced, merged, or appended, nor does it describe error behavior or side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 description is a single, focused sentence that starts with the action verb and avoids any filler. Every word earns its place, and the key batching/scoping information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the schema fully describes both parameters and the nested value structure, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It adds necessary context about the entity already existing and the batching nature of the call. The lack of output schema is not a major gap, though additional detail about merge/overwrite semantics would improve completeness.
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 entityId and values, including the required property/type/value structure. The description adds little beyond 'multiple' and 'existing entity,' which provides minor context but does not materially deepen understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('multiple property values' to an 'existing entity') and highlights the batching capability ('in one call'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_entity or delete_entity, and its meaning does not rely on the tool name alone.
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?
The phrase 'to an existing entity' establishes the context that this tool is for adding values to already-created entities, implying it is not for entity creation. It also signals a batch usage pattern with 'in one call,' giving an agent a clear sense of when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.