Apply changes from specific commits to your current branch, optionally without committing, to replicate fixes or features.
Apply changes introduced by existing commits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| revs | Yes | Commit revisions to cherry-pick. | |
| noCommit | No | Apply changes without committing. |
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 behavioral burden. It is a mutation tool that creates new commits and can produce merge conflicts, but none of this is disclosed, nor are working-tree state requirements or reversibility. Only the one-line operation is stated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the operation is stated immediately and nothing is wasted.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it omits conflict behavior, ordering of multiple revisions, and the effect on the working tree/HEAD. An agent cannot confidently invoke it in edge cases from this text alone.
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 revs, noCommit, and cwd are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., commit ordering for multiple revs), so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Apply changes') and resource ('existing commits'), which maps cleanly onto the well-known git cherry-pick operation. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings such as git_revert or git_rebase, which also move commit changes around, so the agent must rely on the tool name for differentiation.
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 given on when to use cherry-pick versus alternatives like git_rebase or git_merge, nor any prerequisites (e.g., clean working tree). The name implies the use case but the description adds no explicit when/when-not context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.