Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the observable effect (the job stops counting as running) and the state precondition, but it does not say whether the underlying job is cancelled server-side, whether credits are refunded, or whether dismissal is irreversible — all relevant for a state-mutating call.

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 with zero filler; the primary effect and the state constraint are both front-loaded, and nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what to call it on and what it does. The only shortfall is behavioral depth around side effects (cancellation, credit handling, reversibility) given the absence of annotations.

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 single jobId parameter is already documented in the schema as the id from the start tool. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Dismiss') and resource ('a stuck or failed video swap job') plus the effect ('no longer counts as running'), so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not name the sibling tools it relates to (e.g., ryla_video_swap_in_flight or ryla_video_swap_status), so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It states the triggering condition (stuck or failed jobs) and an explicit exclusion (completed jobs cannot be dismissed), which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of routing the agent to an alternative tool such as ryla_video_swap_status to first confirm the job is actually stuck.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.