Lock or unlock arbitrary PCB board items by KIID to control whether they can be moved or edited.
Lock or unlock arbitrary board items by ID.
Args: item_ids: Item KIID strings. locked: True to lock, False to unlock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locked | Yes | ||
| item_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only states the lock/unlock action. It omits side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, behavior with invalid IDs, and whether locked items become protected.
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 front-loaded, concise, and well-structured. Every sentence and the Args block add direct value with no wasted wording.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should disclose more about locking effects, permissions, and safe usage, which it does not.
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. It gives meaning to both parameters ('KIID strings' and 'True to lock, False to unlock'), but does not detail array semantics, valid ID format, or handling of duplicates/invalid IDs.
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?
States a specific verb (lock/unlock), resource (arbitrary board items), and scope (by ID). It distinguishes itself from set_footprint_locked by covering arbitrary items rather than footprints, though it does not name siblings explicitly.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives such as set_footprint_locked, or conditions under which arbitrary item locking is preferred over other selection/modification tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.