Locks or unlocks a specific video or audio track by type and index, preventing unintended edits to that track in an Adobe Premiere Pro timeline.
Lock/unlock a track
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locked | Yes | ||
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index, 0-based (V1 = 0, A1 = 0) |
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 full burden. It indicates a mutation ('lock/unlock') but omits whether locking is reversible, what permissions are needed, or whether it affects only the specified track. Minimal disclosure.
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?
Three words, front-loaded and zero waste. Appropriate for a simple setter, though it could include a brief hint without becoming verbose.
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 low-complexity mutation tool with a reasonably documented schema (67% coverage) and no output schema, the description is minimal but does state the core operation. It leaves behavioral and usage gaps that annotations would normally cover.
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 67%, with trackType and trackIndex documented and an enum for track type. The 'locked' boolean is self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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) and resource (track). It doesn't differentiate from sibling track mutation tools like set_track_muted or set_track_targeted, but the operation is clear on its own.
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 on when to use this tool versus other track state setters, no prerequisites, and no context about what locking affects. The description only restates the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.