save_campSaves a program to the signed-in user’s Junely watchlist. NOTE: saving also arms spot-opening/status-change email alerts for that program — identical to tapping ★ on junely.co. Only call when the user explicitly asks to save/track a program. Requires connecting the user’s Junely account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Program id from a search result |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds side-effect context beyond annotations: alerts triggered, identical to ★ on website. Annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) are consistent; description enriches with behavioral details.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states action and side effect, second provides usage rule and prerequisite. Front-loaded with key info.
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?
Covers action, side effect, usage condition, and prerequisite. Lacks error handling or behavior for duplicate saves (though idempotent). Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter.
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 covers 100% of parameter documentation. Description does not add extra insight beyond schema's 'Program id from a search result'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Title and description clearly state the tool saves a program to the Junely watchlist and arms alerts, with specific verb ('saves') and resource ('program'). Distinguishes from siblings like search_programs by being a save/track action.
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?
Explicitly states 'Only call when the user explicitly asks to save/track a program' and notes account requirement. Does not mention alternative tools but provides clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get details, save to watchlist, search, set alerts, and view open programs. No overlapping functionality that could cause confusion for an agent.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_program_details, search_programs, watch_program), but 'whats_open' breaks the convention (no underscore, abbreviation) and 'save_camp' uses 'camp' while others use 'program', introducing inconsistency.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a camps and after-school discovery service. Each tool earns its place and covers the core user workflow without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The set covers search, details, saving, alerts, and open availability—core tasks. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to remove from watchlist or cancel alerts, but the main lifecycle is addressed.