Updates an existing time entry partially by sending only the fields you want to change, such as hours, comments, billable status, or start and end times.
Partially updates a time entry. Send only the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Partial update of a time entry. | |
| timeEntryId | Yes | Time entry to update. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the important merge semantic that unspecified fields survive the call, which is real behavioral information beyond the annotations. It stops short of covering permissions, whether approved/locked entries can be edited, or what happens on validation failure.
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 filler, with the PATCH semantics front-loaded in sentence one and the practical instruction in sentence two.
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?
Adequate for a narrow mutation whose entire parameter surface is documented at 100%, but it leaves open editability of approved entries and error behavior on invalid field combinations, which matter for a merge-style write tool with no output schema.
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% and the nested body fields each carry their own constraints (UTC instants, ActualHours > 0, BillableStatusId enum-like values, ServiceLineId retention), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the generic instruction to omit unchanged fields, nothing field-specific.
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+resource ("Partially updates a time entry") and the "partially" qualifier distinguishes it from a full-replace operation and from the sibling gorelo_create_time_entry / gorelo_get_time_entry. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the create/get/list naming makes the family obvious.
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?
"Send only the fields you want to change" gives clear invocation guidance for this tool, but nothing about when to choose it over gorelo_create_time_entry or gorelo_get_time_entry, and no prerequisites (e.g. does the entry need to be unapproved/editable?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.