Lock or unlock a Rhino layer by name to prevent or allow edits. Specify locked as true to lock or false to unlock.
Lock or unlock a layer.
Args:
name: Layer name.
locked: True to lock, False to unlock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| locked | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state the core behavior and the meaning of the 'locked' boolean, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose consequences such as what happens to objects on the layer, whether an existing layer is required, or whether the operation is reversible through the same 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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus parameter definitions. Every line adds necessary information, and the primary action is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter tool the description covers the essential calling contract. But given that an output schema exists and no annotations are present, it would be stronger to mention expected failures, layer name matching behavior, or how this relates to other layer-state controls. The current description is adequate but minimal.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains that 'name' is the layer name and that 'locked' uses True to lock and False to unlock. This gives an agent the semantics needed to set the parameters correctly, though it is minimal.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Lock or unlock a layer.' This clearly identifies the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as rhino_lock_selected or rhino_layer_visible, which also relate to visibility/locking states.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_lock_selected, rhino_unlock_all, or rhino_layer_visible. The description implies the tool is for a named layer, but it does not state when a layer lock is preferable to an object selection lock or any other condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.