...cutting out operations were generally the task assigned to young lieutenants looking for some "glory."
Do you have evidence to support that contention? I would think it would depend on the size and scope of the operation and how many men the senior officer commanded. The British boat attack launched in conjunction with the bombardment of Fort McHenry in the failed Baltimore operation was commanded by Royal Navy Captain Charles Napier. The boat attack failed. the Royal Navy boat attack against the US Navy gunboats on Lake Borgne during the New Orleans campaign was commanded by Royal Navy Captain Lockyer. It was successful capturing the entire American flotilla. Baot attacks/cutting out operations were difficult at best and sending an inexperienced junior officer on them begged failure. Even the senior officers might not do too well as shown.
Toulon, however, was not a cutting out operation, it was an incendiary operation.
It was a tactical operation akin to a cutting out operation, the difference between the two being almost non-existent. Stephen Decatur's cutting out operation to burn the US frigate Philadelphia in Tripoli harbor was also a cutting out operations that entailed burning a warship.
When it comes to special/guerrilla war type operations, the first Georgian naval officer that comes to mind is Sir Sidney Smith.
Seems to me that is something of an exaggeration. Smith was not the best junior officer in the Royal Navy. Perhaps he was given command of the operation because Hood and others believed him to be expendable and not a great loss if he either failed or was killed?
MY point (not your point) was that for British naval interests, they were very lucky to have on hand the best man for the job, undoubtedly the very best incendiary in the Royal Navy, Sir Sidney Smith.
Do you have any substantive evidence that Smith was believed to be 'the best man for the job'?