cherry_pick_modification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the Pro requirement and the inline 3D stage side effect, including automatic mesh decimation, but it does not explain mutation effects, conflict behavior, reversibility, branch state changes, or error handling.

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 operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description includes upgrade marketing and repeats the inline 3D stage behavior in a second full paragraph. Those sentences do not earn their place in a tool definition and dilute the useful content.

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 complex mutation with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It describes the stage experience but omits essential invocation details such as parameter roles, merge/conflict implications, and what success actually changes.

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 0% across five parameters, and the description does not compensate. It mentions source and target branches generically, but does not explain ancestor_version_id, source_version_id, target_version_id, feature_id, or source_branch_id well enough for an agent to populate them correctly.

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 and resource: apply one isolated semantic modification from a source branch onto a target branch. It is clear enough to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish this generic modification cherry-pick from sibling tools such as cherry_pick_feature_modification or cherry_pick_decoration_modification.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The only conditional information is a Kiln Pro requirement and upgrade URL, which does not help an agent choose between this and related cherry-pick or merge tools.

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