call_operator

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Call' which implies execution, but doesn't mention side effects, mutation, error conditions, context requirements, or that operators may fail if prerequisites aren't met. The execution_context parameter is not explained, and there's no indication of what happens upon success or failure.

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 extremely short, but not appropriately sized. For a generic tool with four undocumented parameters, it omits critical information. While there are no wasted words, the terse style leaves the agent guessing. It's under-specified rather than concisely complete.

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 (multiple params, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that isn't referenced), the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks usage examples, parameter explanations, error handling, and return value info. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the provided text.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It says nothing about idname, params, execution_context, or use_view3d_override. The agent has no idea what these mean or how to format them, making correct usage impossible without external knowledge.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Call any Blender operator.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings that handle specific operators or batch calls, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase '100% bpy.ops surface' adds context about coverage but isn't necessary. It's better than a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specialized operator tools (e.g., subdivide, bevel) or call_operators_batch. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer that this is a catch-all for unsupported operators, which is not stated.

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