git_cherry_pick

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: the commit order matters, and conflict state persists so the operation can be resumed. It still omits what the working tree/index looks like mid-conflict and whether commits are auto-committed.

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 no filler; the operation and its two notable traits arrive immediately. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but this is a destructive repository mutation with two parameters at 0% schema coverage. The undefined mainline parameter and the missing resume workflow leave an agent without enough to invoke it correctly in the conflict case.

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%, so the description must carry the meaning of both parameters. 'Ordered commit list' usefully conveys that revisions order governs application order, but the mainline parameter — the non-obvious one for merge commits — goes entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: cherry-pick over an 'explicit ordered commit list'. It is distinguishable from git_revert and git_merge by naming the operation precisely, though it never names a sibling tool to contrast with.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as git_revert, git_merge, or git_rebase. The phrase 'resumable conflict state' hints that a follow-up resume step exists, but the description never says to use git_continue or what state triggers that path.

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