Unlock a PCB layer in EasyEDA Pro to enable editing and modifications on that layer.
pcb_Layer.unlockLayer(layer?: TPCB_LayersInTheSelectable | Array) -> Promise 取消锁定层 returns: 操作是否成功
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return type (boolean success) but doesn't describe side effects, behavior when layers are already unlocked, or any state changes. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 very short, front-loading the signature and return type. It is concise and structured, with no wasted words. However, it lacks explanatory context, which makes it efficient but not informative.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention the windowId parameter (schema covers it), doesn't explain what values to pass for the layer, and provides no usage context. An agent would struggle to know when to call this or what to pass.
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?
The description includes the signature with the layer type (TPCB_LayersInTheSelectable), which the schema does not specify in the args items (empty items). This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't enumerate valid values or explain the type. It partially compensates for the sparse schema.
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 it unlocks a layer ('取消锁定层'), which is a clear verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lock_layer or set_layer_visible, but the action is specific enough. However, it doesn't mention that it operates on PCB layers, though the tool name suggests it.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as layers being locked, or when this operation is appropriate. The description gives no context about how it differs from other layer-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.