Improve consistency and documentation on error handling in in UDFs

### Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?

When writing a new UDF, a developer needs to decide how to perform error management in functions that return `Result`, such as `return_type` and `invoke`. Looking at the existing codebase it is not obvious what are the error management best practices

# Errors in return type
- Regexp like uses an `plan_err` data types of args do not match the expected types https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/77311a5896272c7ed252d8cd53d48ec6ea7c0ccf/datafusion/functions/src/regex/regexplike.rs#L74 . Is this check redundant?

- Except expects two arguments but doesn't check the length, just the type https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/77311a5896272c7ed252d8cd53d48ec6ea7c0ccf/datafusion/functions-array/src/except.rs#L55.

# Errors in invoke

In the resize function, there is a check on argument lengths in invoke which is not present in the `return_type` function
https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/77311a5896272c7ed252d8cd53d48ec6ea7c0ccf/datafusion/functions-array/src/resize.rs#L27

The same function also returns `exec_err`, and `internal_datafusion_err`

### Describe the solution you'd like

As a developers of custom UDF I would like to know:
- what errors I need to check for and what are already checked by the planner (number of arguments?)
- what type of errors need to be raised in which conditions

### Describe alternatives you've considered

_No response_

### Additional context

_No response_

Start by comparing return_type and invoke in datafusion/functions/src/regex/regexplike.rs and datafusion/functions-array/src/except.rs and resize.rs, focusing on argument checks and the reported error variants. Review how planner validation relates to these functions; done means documenting the expected checks and error types, with any consistency changes covered by tests.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.