Annule le dossier et invalide les liens de signature en circulation. Sans effet sur un constat déjà envoyé.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dossier | Yes | Identifiant du dossier renvoyé par constat_demarrer. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, the description specifies exactly what is affected: 'invalide les liens de signature en circulation' (invalidates signature links in circulation) and the limitation 'Sans effet sur un constat déjà envoyé'. This is valuable, non-obvious context that annotations alone do not convey.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It includes the key limitation in a separate short sentence, with no filler or redundant information. This is a model of efficient communication.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it invalidates, and its non-effect on sent constats. Combined with the annotations (destructive, idempotent), it gives an agent sufficient understanding to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical information is missing.
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% as the single parameter 'dossier' has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Annule' (cancels) and clearly identifies the resource 'le dossier' and the secondary effect 'invalide les liens de signature'. It distinguishes itself from sibling constat tools by focusing on cancellation and invalidation of signature links. The final clause about no effect on an already sent constat further clarifies the scope.
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 provides a clear context for use: cancel a dossier and invalidate signature links. It explicitly states a limitation/exclusion: 'Sans effet sur un constat déjà envoyé' (no effect on an already sent constat), which tells the agent when this tool will not work. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each constat_* tool corresponds to a distinct phase of the accident statement workflow—starting, filling, sketching, signing, status checking, finalizing, canceling—with no two tools overlapping in purpose. The two guide-related tools (search, fetch) are clearly separate from the workflow tools.
The constat_ prefix provides a recognizable pattern, but the suffix alternates between verbs (demarrer, renseigner, finaliser, annuler) and nouns (circonstances, croquis, signatures, statut, assureurs). Additionally, the two guide tools (fetch, search) break the pattern entirely, mixing languages and conventions.
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: each tool serves a clear step in the constat process and the two guide tools complement the primary workflow without redundancy. The count is within the ideal 3–15 range and does not feel heavy or thin.
The workflow is well covered: start, fill, sketch, sign, monitor status, finalize, and cancel. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated 'get full constat contents' tool (statut only shows missing fields and signature state), but the core lifecycle is otherwise complete.
