rna.call_operator

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'args validated against its RNA'. It does not disclose potential destructive actions, required context, permissions, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 sentence and front-loaded with the key action. However, it lacks necessary details for usage and behavior, making it somewhat incomplete rather than optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (generic operator runner with 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not cover return values, error cases, or how to set up the context (selection, mode) for operators to succeed.

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 additional meaning to the parameters beyond their schema titles. The description does not explain how to format arguments, the role of mode or object, or the expected structure of the 'args' JSON.

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 it runs any bpy.ops operator with RNA validation. It specifies the verb 'run', the resource 'bpy.ops operator', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target specific 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 implies usage for any operator not covered by specific tools, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'mesh.bevel' or 'object.create'.

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