ui-operator_invoke

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that dispatch is 'undo-safe' and that controlled editor area context is used. However, it does not explain what side effects arbitrary operators may have, how failures are surfaced, or what 'undo-safe' practically means for the calling agent.

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 no wasted words: 'Run any Blender operator' is the core action, followed by two meaningful qualifiers. It is appropriately concise despite the complexity of the underlying tool.

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 broad, multiparameter tool with no annotations, no enums, and no output schema, yet the description does not mention return values, error behaviors, operator availability, or how arguments should be structured. It gives a viable starting point but is too incomplete for safe and confident use.

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 only implies the area/region/window-related parameters. The meanings, formatting, and interaction of parameters like pathetic mode, select, object, or args are not explained beyond their schema titles, so the description adds very little semantic value for a 10-parameter tool.

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 purpose: 'Run any Blender operator' with a specific execution approach ('explicit editor area context and undo-safe dispatch'). It distinguishes this as a generic operator execution tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like ui-operator_poll or rna-call_operator.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, no when-not-to-use cases, and no mention of how 'any Blender operator' should be selected or validated. The phrase implies broad usage, but actionable selection criteria are absent.

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