What the documents look like
Brand member private-domain operations handle customer data and repeat-purchase outreach. The work does not cover store scheduling. In this category, contract and transaction material comparison centers on four document types: member tag tables, outreach plans, coupon rules, and privacy authorization records. Data sources include the CRM system, enterprise WeChat, POS consumption records, and mini-program behavior data. Update frequency is daily or weekly.
Tool calls and plugins let a model decide from context whether to invoke a module or plugin in order to extract and compare fields across these materials. A tool description tells the model what the tool does and under what input conditions it applies. System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable. When a required parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may decline to call the tool. These traits mean comparison work cannot rely on one fixed flow; a small set of tools is tuned before more are added.
Constraints at the tool calls step
Tool invocation depends on the model's semantic reading of the tool description and parameter descriptions. The model may fabricate a parameter value, and it may skip a tool when a required parameter is missing. In advanced orchestration, a connected tool separates tool input from ordinary input, and its description can be edited to sharpen the timing of the call. A tool call termination node ends the current call: no further tools run, and the AI no longer summarizes tool results. Custom tool variables extend input so that nodes not treated as tool parameters can participate in the call.
Retrieval and similarity scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers are checked first and non-matching records are excluded. Forms collect values. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material to be checked reads, "Party A's brand member operations center and Party B, a data service provider, agree under contract number HYP-2024-001 for a service period from January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024, authorizing Party B to process fields related to member tag tables and outreach plans; coupon rules are maintained by Party A alone." The draft sentence to be judged reads, "Party B has obtained authorization to modify coupon rules." The comparison object is the contract's authorization scope against the object named in the draft sentence. The authorization described in the draft sentence does not appear in the source text. It is unsupported, and it cannot be judged as granted or refused.
Configuration and implementation checks
The settings below relate to this page's sample. They list only documented settings or implementation checks. The values are starting points for this hypothetical trial, given to explain the reason for the choice and the comparison method; they are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Check method and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State "compare contract authorization scope with the draft sentence" | The description needs input conditions and cases where the tool should not be called, so the model can decide timing |
| Tool parameters | Fill plugin parameters with the contract number and draft sentence fields | System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable; a parameter description is not a guarantee of execution |
| Required parameter | Set the contract number as required | With no suitable required parameter the model may not call; complete it through interaction and check the actual request |
| Tool connection | Connect one contract-field extraction tool first | Tune a small set of tools before expanding; avoid adding many tools at once |
| Tool call termination | Attach after the comparison tool | The termination node ends this call and stops the AI from summarizing tool results |
| Custom tool variable | Add a variable description for outreach plan fields | Extends nodes not treated as tool parameters so they join the call |
Three common errors
- Treating a tool parameter description as a guarantee of execution. Input is the plugin parameter description text; the comparison object is the parameter value in the actual request; the observable result is that the description exists while the actual request carries no such value. This is unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval or similarity score as a permission filter. Input is a retrieval result containing a similarity score; the comparison object is the contract authorization scope; the observable result is a high score for a record outside the authorized scope. This is an overreach risk and requires manual identifier checking.
- Treating a pending-review state as approved. Input is the draft sentence's claim of "has obtained authorization"; the comparison object is the authorization clause in the source material; the observable result is that the source text does not state that authorization. This is unsupported and cannot be judged as granted or refused.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the source material and draft sentence from the hypothetical sample; compare the object named in the draft sentence with the authorization scope in the source; the observable result is that the source does not state authorization to modify coupon rules. The condition is met when the judgment is "unsupported," with no finding of granted or refused.
- Verification two: input contract number HYP-2024-001 from the hypothetical sample; compare whether the tool's required parameter carries that number; the observable result is that the actual request carries the number and the tool is called. The condition is met when the required parameter is passed intact; if it is absent, record that the call did not occur.
- Verification three: input the authorization scope field from the hypothetical sample; compare whether the retrieval result falls inside that scope; the observable result is that the returned record identifier does not match the authorization scope. The condition is met when non-matching records are excluded and the actual observation is recorded. An empty-result handoff may use the paper input [] to check downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule search necessarily returns [].