eda_pcb_layer_lock_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the return type (Promise<boolean>). It does not explain what locking does to the layer state, whether the operation is reversible, what happens when the layer is already locked, or how it affects the target window — a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 short and the signature is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than economically complete. Almost all content is the raw signature plus a two-line note; there is no behavioral or contextual prose to earn the space.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the basic operation and return meaning but leaves the layer parameter values unexplained and provides no behavioral context or usage scenario. An agent could invoke it but would not know what valid layer inputs look like or what side effects to expect.

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 100%, but the schema only describes a generic 'args' array and windowId. The description adds the function signature, which supplies the layer parameter's type (TPCB_LayersInTheSelectable or an array thereof) — value beyond the generic schema. Still, the valid values and semantics of the layer parameter are not explained, so it only partially compensates.

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 the operation (锁定层 / lock layer) and the signature reveals the verb+resource, so the purpose is identifiable and not a pure tautology. However, it is essentially a raw API signature dump with a two-word Chinese phrase and a return note; it does not articulate scope or differentiate from layer siblings in any descriptive way.

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 zero guidance on when to lock a layer, what prerequisites exist, or which alternative to prefer. Siblings like eda_pcb_layer_unlock_layer, eda_pcb_layer_select_layer, and eda_pcb_layer_modify_layer are not referenced, and no selection condition or exclusion is given.

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