There is quite a bit of scope to this question.
Games made for profit
Triple A titles are often/usually produced under a time constraint set by financial backers that don't care about the quality of the game, but the profits it generates. Thus the editor is predominately a short cut and will do "80%" of the work, the other "20%" is things specific to the game being made, fine tuning, and rare/one-off objects/events (thus not worth investing time to create a tool and then the object, event, etc.). It can also be damaging if the game feels too similar to the the previous one or another title already out there. Basically is it financially worth the time to develop the tool especially if you are going to tweak what it produces anyway.
Games made for other reasons
Games are works of art, and so is the way in which you make games thus there is no right or wrong way. It all comes down to what you enjoy making. If you enjoy tool development then make all the tools you like. If you enjoy turning out lots of games then making generic tools can expedite this, but can end up making them feel too similar thus the time spent out of the editor to tweak them to their own style. You might also want to test out an concept, but not want to invest a lot of time developing an editor.
In game level editor's
Editor's in games can cause issues; being buggy or make too much of a demand on the system (especially for hand held and mobile platforms) and thus are best avoided as not to tarnish the polished product.
This answer is currently incomplete