Modify an existing Redmine time entry by changing hours, comments, date, activity, or issue; pass the entry ID and at least one field to update.
Update an existing time entry. Pass at least one field to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The time entry ID | |
| hours | No | New hours value | |
| comments | No | New comment | |
| issue_id | No | Move the entry to another issue | |
| spent_on | No | New date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| activity_id | No | New activity ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about required permissions, whether unlisted fields are preserved, what happens if the entry does not exist or is locked/approved, or whether the change is reversible. Only the bare fact of mutation is conveyed.
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, zero waste, with the action stated first and the invocation constraint second. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits error behavior, permission requirements, and partial-update semantics. An agent can form a call, but not predict the consequences or failure modes.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint not encoded in the schema: the schema requires only `id`, while the description tells the agent at least one optional field must also be supplied. That is meaningful semantic value beyond the structured fields.
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 an existing time entry") that an agent can distinguish from log_time (create) and delete_time_entry (remove) without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name a sibling or a boundary condition, so it falls short of 5.
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?
"Pass at least one field to change" gives a real precondition for invocation, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus log_time or delete_time_entry, nor on prerequisites such as ownership or entry state. Usage is implied rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.