Update a Redmine time entry by ID. Provide the entry ID and the fields to change, such as hours, activity, or comments.
Update time entry (PUT /time_entries/:id.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| time_entry | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only conveys that the operation is an HTTP PUT, implying mutation, but does not cover idempotency, partial vs full update semantics, required permissions, side effects, or error/response behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.
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 clean sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and providing the endpoint in parentheses. It is easily parseable, though it may be too terse given the amount of missing context, making it efficient but not overly rich.
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?
Despite the tool having only two parameters, the description leaves all critical usage details unaddressed: how to populate the time_entry object, what id refers to, what the endpoint accepts, and what the response contains. With no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate for correct invocation.
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 compensate. It only hints at the 'id' parameter via the endpoint URL; the 'time_entry' object parameter is entirely unexplained, including required fields, format, or accepted keys. The agent cannot construct a valid request from the description alone.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update time entry') and adds the HTTP endpoint (PUT /time_entries/:id.json), which disambiguates the operation as an update. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like redmine_time_entry_create or redmine_time_entry_delete through the verb and method, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redmine_time_entry_create or redmine_time_entry_delete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing entry ID), scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and endpoint alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.