Change the hours, comment, date, or amount of an existing time entry for a task in a project.
Change the hours, comment, date or amount of an existing time entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | New date. | |
| hours | No | New hours value. | |
| money | No | New cost amount. | |
| comment | No | New comment. | |
| cost_id | Yes | Entry to update. | |
| task_id | Yes | Task the entry belongs to. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project the task belongs to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Change' implies mutation, but the description does not clarify partial-update semantics, whether null values clear or preserve fields, permission requirements, or what response is returned. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 with no filler, and the core action and affected fields are front-loaded. Every word adds value.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, this description is too thin. It does not address update behavior, validation constraints, or how the three required identifiers are used to target the entry, leaving an agent without enough context to call the tool reliably in non-obvious situations.
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 schema already documents all seven parameters with descriptions. The description adds only the synonym 'amount' for the money parameter and no meaningful extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Change') with a clear resource ('an existing time entry') and lists the mutable fields (hours, comment, date, amount). It aligns with the sibling add_costs as creation and get_costs as reading, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous.
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 description implies this is for updating an existing entry, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of add_costs or get_costs, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.