Update a specific time entry by providing its ID and the fields to change, such as text description.
Edit a time entry for the authenticated user.
Args: entry_id: ID of the entry to edit data: Dictionary of fields to update (e.g., {"text": "new description"})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| entry_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations and no description of side effects, persistence, irreversibility, or permissions. The description only says 'edit', which implies mutation, but provides no details about consequences or 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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence plus two parameter explanations. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
The description is minimal and lacks important context such as expected output, potential errors, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a simple edit operation it may be sufficient, but it does not fully cover what an agent needs to know in context.
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?
The schema itself has no descriptions, but the tool description explains entry_id as 'ID of the entry to edit' and data as 'Dictionary of fields to update' with an example. This provides basic meaning for both parameters, though the data parameter remains underspecified because additionalProperties is true and allowed fields are not enumerated.
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 clearly states the tool edits a time entry for the authenticated user, using the verb 'edit' and the resource 'time entry'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add/delete/get, but the action is specific enough to be understood.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adding, deleting, or getting time entries. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions under which it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.