Import an experience pack as a reference set: cards become searchable and visible in 3D but stay out of review until you claim them for active memorization.
安装经验包（插槽生态）：别人的经验卡整包进库，独立成域、不融合锚点。包卡挂参考态（ref）：能搜到（垫底）、3D 图可见、但不进复习队列；用户在详情面板点「认领」后才转正进入复习。pack 格式：{name, keywords?, cards:[{type?, symptom, story?, checks, rootCause, example?, anchors}]}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pack | Yes | 包对象：{name, cards:[...]}，卡字段与 save_card 相同 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility—and it delivers. It discloses that cards enter in ref state, are searchable, appear in 3D view, are excluded from the review queue, and only become active after the user claims them.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: scope, behavioral effect, lifecycle, and format are packed into a compact description with no filler. The most important facts appear early.
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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, its lifecycle effects, and its data shape. It lacks explicit return/outcome behavior and preconditions, but for an install-style tool the provided context is largely sufficient.
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 schema already names the pack parameter, and the description adds the full pack shape including nested card fields, optionality markers, and the anchors field. This adds genuine semantic value beyond the schema, though field-level details like anchors are not deeply explained.
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?
Uses a specific verb and resource: installing an experience pack (整包进库). It distinguishes the behavior from save_card by emphasizing batch import, domain independence, and ref-state lifecycle.
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?
The description makes clear this is for bulk-importing someone else's experience pack and explains the resulting card lifecycle, implying it is not for creating a single active card. It does not explicitly name save_card or claim_card as alternatives, but the context strongly signals the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.