git_cherry_pick

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds useful context: the no_commit option, the return message, and importantly that conflicts are 'reported as errors — resolve them and continue'. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, exclusions, and return behavior. No redundant filler; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the success return ('Cherry-picked <commits>') and error behavior (conflicts reported as errors). It covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and key option (no_commit). Could mention prerequisites like clean working tree, but for a git tool this is quite thorough.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description mentions commits and no_commit but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. The repo_path parameter is not elaborated, but its schema description is sufficient. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Apply the changes of one or more commits onto the current branch', which is a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Does NOT integrate a whole branch — use git_merge or git_rebase for that; use git_revert to undo a commit instead of applying it.' This fully differentiates it from related git tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to port a specific fix or feature from another branch when a full merge is too broad'. It also gives explicit exclusions and alternatives, naming git_merge, git_rebase, and git_revert. This is a textbook example of usage guidelines.

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