Revise Cosmos DB container requirements for Standard setup

[georgeollis]

Updated Cosmos DB container requirements for Standard setup to include two additional containers and clarified the distinction between Classic and New Foundry Agent Service runtimes.

[prmerger-automator]

@georgeollis : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) and reviewer(s) have been notified to review your proposed change.

[learn-build-service-prod]

Learn Build status updates of commit 0b9bf7a:

✅ Validation status: passed

File	Status	Preview URL	Details
articles/foundry/agents/includes/concepts-standard-agent-setup-content.md	✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

[v-dirichards]

@fosteramanda

Can you review the proposed changes?

Important: When the changes are ready for publication, adding a #sign-off comment is the best way to signal that the PR is ready for the review team to merge.

#label:"aq-pr-triaged"
@MicrosoftDocs/public-repo-pr-review-team

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates the Standard agent setup documentation to reflect new Cosmos DB container requirements and to clarify differences between the Classic and New Foundry Agent Service runtimes.

Changes:

• Updates the Cosmos DB container list for Standard setup to include agent-definitions-v1 and run-state-v1.
• Adds text clarifying which containers are used by Classic vs New runtimes.
• Adds an inline warning-style callout (currently implemented as a heading) about the runtime/container differences.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

articles/foundry/agents/includes/concepts-standard-agent-setup-content.md:72

• The Project-level data isolation section below still states that “Three containers are provisioned in your Cosmos DB account…”, which contradicts the updated container requirements above and the Classic/New split. Please update that paragraph to reflect the correct container(s) for each runtime (and avoid reintroducing the outdated 3-container description).

The **Classic** and **New** Foundry Agent Service runtimes use **different Cosmos DB containers**.  

## Project-level data isolation

Standard setup enforces project-level data isolation by default. Two blob storage containers are automatically provisioned in your storage account: one for files and one for intermediate system data (chunks, embeddings). Three containers are provisioned in your Cosmos DB account: one for user threads, one for system messages, and one for agent configuration data such as instructions, tools, and names. This default behavior reduces setup complexity while still enforcing strict data boundaries between projects.

[Copilot]

The statement that the Standard setup provisions five containers is hard to reconcile with the later Classic/New split (New runtime uses only agent-definitions-v1 and run-state-v1). Please clarify whether users must provision all five containers in all cases, or whether the required containers (and RU/s totals) depend on which runtime they use.

[georgeollis]

The service automatically provisions these containers for you

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been inactive for at least 14 days. If you are finished with your changes, don't forget to sign off. See the contributor guide for instructions.
Get Help
Docs Support Teams Channel
Resolve Merge Conflict

[tkudo-ms]

Hi team,

We have an active support case where a customer is confused by the Cosmos DB container naming discrepancy between documentation and their actual environment.

The existing page "Use your own resources" already documents the newer container names (agent-definitions-v1, run-state-v1, agent-entity-store):
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/foundry/agents/how-to/use-your-own-resources#use-an-existing-azure-cosmos-db-for-nosql-account-for-conversation-storage

However, the "Standard agent setup" concepts page (which this PR targets) still only references the classic containers (thread-message-store, system-thread-message-store). This inconsistency between the two pages is causing customer confusion — they expect to see containers listed in the concepts page but find different ones in their Cosmos DB account.

Could we prioritize getting this PR reviewed and merged? It would resolve the documentation gap and help us close the support case with a clear public reference.

Additionally, the Cosmos DB-side page (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/gen-ai/azure-agent-service) also still references only the classic containers. I've filed a separate issue for that: MicrosoftDocs/nosql-docs#19

Thank you!

[v-regandowner]

@sdgilley - are you able to take a look at this urgent review request?

[prmerger-automator]

@georgeollis : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) and reviewer(s) have been notified to review your proposed change.