I disagree that it is well-understood in the way you describe. I agree that there are two distinct concepts: 1. Programs that can be run as a CLI command, often without further user interaction (but consider cases like rm -i, which are quite common), and 2. programs that expose their functionality by providing their own interactive CLI.

In the case of 1, the program’s argument syntax can be referred to as the program’s “command-line interface”. But the abbreviation “CLI” usually means the interactive interface as in 2.

The latter is analogous to the notion of how TUI programs provide their own interactive interface. When making the distinction between CLI and TUI, it’s the latter that is meant, i.e. is it a line-oriented or screen-oriented user interface.

Saying “CLI editor” doesn’t imply that the editor commands are necessarily invoked as non-interactive shell commands, as opposed to the editor providing a CLI of its own.

Technically, every program can serve as a “CLI command”, since you can invoke it with arguments. However, “command line” is generally understood to mean the user interface where the user types commands, as opposed to non-interactive program invocation. When invoking a program with arguments from another program with exec or similar, you don’t call that a CLI.