Updates an existing Contabo domain handle by ID so you can change contact details such as email, address, phone, and required registration fields.
Update specific handle [PUT /v1/domains/handles/{handleId}] Update specific handle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body | |
| handleId | Yes | The identifier of the handle | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the PUT replaces the whole handle or merges, whether omitted optional fields are cleared, or that the operation touches upstream registries (NIC.it, AFNIC, SIDN).
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?
It is short, but it is also the same sentence printed twice, with the endpoint tag interleaved. That is redundant filler rather than front-loaded information; the space could have carried one useful clause about PUT replacement semantics.
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 mutation tool with a deep nested body (address, phone, fax, birthInfo, multiple registry-specific fields), no output schema, and no annotations beyond hints, the description is essentially empty. An agent cannot learn from it whether the body is a full replacement, what a successful response looks like, or what registry validation errors to expect.
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%, so the baseline is 3; the nested body fields all carry their own descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it never mentions that handleId is the same path identifier used by retrieve_handle/remove_handle.
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 is the tool name expanded into a sentence: 'Update specific handle' repeated twice plus the endpoint path. It restates the identifier rather than explaining what an update to a handle entails (which fields, replacement vs merge, effect on registrant data). A sibling like retrieve_handle is distinguishable only by the verb, which the name already gives.
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 when-to-use, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives (e.g. create_handle, remove_handle, set_default_handle). The agent gets no signal about when this is the right call or what state the handle must be in first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.