capabilities-invoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'undo-safe' and 'args validated against its schema,' which are useful, but it does not disclose potential destructive side effects, failure modes, or how the tool behaves when an operator cannot run. For an arbitrary operator-execution tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes something: the action, the validation behavior, and undo safety. While it is very short, this is still acceptable concision; the problems is the lack of substantive guidance rather than inefficiency.

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?

This is a high-complexity, generic operator-invocation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description gives only one line and does not explain return behavior, error handling, side effects, prerequisite context, or relationship to poll/undo. It is far from complete for an agent to use safely.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It only says 'args validated against its schema,' which does not explain the format or semantics of idname, args, mode, object, or select. The input schema has some title-level examples, but the description itself fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Run any Blender operator with args validated against its schema.' This is a specific verb+resource description. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as ui-operator_invoke or rna-call_operator, which also invoke Blender operators.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ui-operator_invoke or rna-call_operator. 'Run any Blender operator' implies broad use, but there are no context cues, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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