bring_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it states the exact mechanism (`git apply`), what it does NOT do (merge/rebase), and its failure behavior (leaves everything untouched and returns the raw git error). It also mentions the `stage` behavior indirectly via the description. This is highly transparent and exceeds typical expectations.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with the core action first, followed by a crucial warning, a short checklist, and a safety guarantee. Every clause adds value with no filler. It is concise, well-structured, and immediately conveys the essential information.

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 tool that moves changes between worktrees, the description covers what it does, how it does it, what it avoids, the recommended pre-check (`diff`), and the failure mode. It adequately explains the tool's behavior, and since there is no output schema, the lack of return-value details is acceptable. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds marginal context: it clarifies the overall purpose (moving diff) and mentions 'para que vos decidás qué stagear' which relates to the `stage` parameter, but it does not add significant new meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema states. 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 states a specific verb and resource: it applies uncommitted changes from a worktree to the target repo's working tree via `git apply`. It explicitly distinguishes itself from operations that merge or rebase history, which sets it apart from potential sibling tools like `diff` or `run`. This is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 clear guidance: check with `diff` first, and explains that it only moves the diff, never merges/rebase. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when a merge is needed), it implies the appropriate context and advises a prerequisite step. This is strong but not exhaustive.

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