ui.operator_invoke

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

The description discloses two important behaviors: undo support and area context handling. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes (e.g., what happens if the operator doesn't exist). The behavioral transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 short sentence (10 words), which is very concise. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing key features) to improve readability. The conciseness is good, but the lack of structure limits information density.

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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in schema or description, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what the parameters do, how to format 'args', or what the return value is. Essential context for correct usage is missing.

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 provides no explanation of any of the 10 parameters. The phrase 'explicit editor area context' only vaguely hints at the 'area' parameter. No parameter meaning is added beyond the schema's title fields.

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 action ('Run'), the resource ('any Blender operator'), and distinct features ('explicit editor area context', 'undo-safe dispatch'). This differentiates it from similar tools like '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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'explicit editor area context' and 'undo-safe dispatch' implies use cases, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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