Tower is a graphical Git client for macOS and Windows built for the operations that are easy to get wrong on the command line. Interactive rebase, cherry-picking, conflict resolution, reflog recovery and partial staging are all things Git can do and few people do confidently under pressure. Tower renders them as something you can see before you commit to it.
The interface that does the most work is the history graph: branches, merges and tags drawn clearly enough that you can tell what actually happened to a repository, which is usually the first question when something has gone wrong. Staging happens at the level of files, hunks or individual lines, which makes splitting an accidental two-in-one change into two clean commits a matter of clicking rather than an exercise in patch editing.
Conflict resolution is handled in a dedicated view with both sides and the result, rather than in a file full of angle brackets. Interactive rebase is a list you reorder, squash and reword before applying. Undo covers most destructive operations, and the reflog is exposed in a browsable form, which converts the standard Git panic of "I have lost a commit" into a search. For teams where not everyone is a Git expert, that safety net is the argument for buying it.
Beyond the core, it integrates with GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure DevOps for pull requests, handles submodules and Git LFS properly, supports signing, and offers services such as pulling a file's history or blaming a line without leaving the app. Quick actions provide a command-palette style route to most operations for people who like keyboards.
The considerations: it is a paid subscription in a category with capable free alternatives, including the official clients and several open source options, so the purchase has to be justified by the time saved. It is a Git client, not a development environment, so it sits alongside your editor rather than replacing part of it. And there is a reasonable argument, made often, that developers should learn Git properly on the command line rather than smoothing it over with a GUI; the counterargument is that most teams contain people whose job is not primarily writing code, and those people benefit enormously.
Who it suits: teams with mixed Git confidence, and developers who do complex history work often enough to want it visible. Who should look elsewhere: command-line purists, and anyone whose Git use never leaves commit, pull and push.