What the documents look like
Refund-only dispute work centres on proof of dispatch and proof of receipt, together with the value of the goods. Unlike ordinary return-and-refund cases, there is usually no record of goods arriving back at a warehouse. The everyday documents are the refund-only application, the dispatch evidence, the signed-receipt evidence and the appeal material. These come from the platform after-sales backend, carrier tracking, customer-service chat and warehouse outbound records. Operating reports and exception reviews check, per order and per day, whether the material set is complete and whether the case status has moved forward.
At the tool-call step, these documents matter because the model decides whether to call a tool from the tool introduction and the parameter introductions, and decides whether a call can succeed from whether the required parameters are available. When material is missing or a status has not been updated, the model may decline to call a tool, or may fabricate a parameter. The reporting basis then drifts away from the underlying records.
The eight-dimension brief places this category in e-commerce customer service and after-sales, with the feature being tool calls and plug-ins. Three industry facts shape this page. First, the evidence emphasis falls on dispatch and receipt rather than on a returned-goods warehouse entry, so any tool used here must be able to work without a return record. Second, the material arrives from four separate sources, so a report line is only as complete as the weakest source. Third, the consequence of an error is that the payment is deducted, the goods cannot be recovered and store metrics fall, which makes the accuracy of the tool-call decision directly consequential.
Constraints at the tool calls step
The tool-call node runs on three conditions taken together: the tool introduction, the parameter introductions and whether each parameter is required. For system modules the parameters are already fixed. For plug-ins the parameters are a configurable item. Where a suitable required parameter is absent from the context, the model may not call the tool, and prompt wording can guide the user to supply the parameter. Where a tool has parameters but none are required, the model may invent a parameter value. Models that support function calling can call several tools in one pass.
In advanced orchestration, the available tools are connected to the tool-call module. A connected tool separates tool input from ordinary input, and its introduction can be edited so that the call timing is tighter. The official guidance is to begin with a small number of tools and tune before adding more. The tool-call termination node ends the current call: no further tool is called and the AI is no longer asked to summarise the tool result. The custom variable node extends tool input so that nodes not treated as tool parameters can still be called.
A hypothetical paper sample is used below for checking only. It does not represent any real customer or any actual handling outcome. The material text is: "Application A-0715 states that the buyer submitted a refund-only application on 15 July for order D-8801, on the ground that the goods were not received. Dispatch evidence S-0715 states that the order was handed to the carrier on 12 July, waybill Y-3301. Signed-receipt evidence Q-0715 states that waybill Y-3301 was signed for by the recipient in person on 14 July." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "Order D-8801 has been signed for, the refund-only application lacks a basis, and rejection is recommended."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State the input conditions and the situations in which the tool should not be called | Compare against the official statement that the introduction tells the model what the tool is for; check whether the introduction covers the missing-material situation |
| Plug-in parameter introduction | Describe the meaning of each parameter | Compare against the parameter introduction text; check whether the model can obtain a suitable parameter from the context |
| Required flag | Mark the signed-receipt field as required | Compare against the official statement that a missing suitable required parameter may prevent a call; check whether the actual request carries that parameter |
| Number of connected tools | Connect two tools first | Compare against the official advice to tune a small number of tools before adding more; check whether the trial stage exceeds that |
| Tool-call termination | Place it after the evidence-collection tool | Compare against the official statement that termination stops further tools and the AI summary; check whether the flow stops at that point |
The values above are hypothetical starting points for this trial only and are not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Writing the tool introduction as a general description without stating the situations in which the tool should not be called. The check feeds the variant of the hypothetical sample that lacks signed-receipt evidence, compares whether the model still calls the receipt-verification tool, and treats the appearance of that tool in the call record as the observable result that the introduction was not tightened.
- Treating the parameter introduction as a guarantee of execution, on the assumption that a correct value will necessarily be obtained once it is filled in. The check feeds the sample material text and the draft sentence, compares the parameter values in the actual request against the material text, and treats a request parameter that does not match the material as the observable result that the parameter was not correctly constrained.
- Treating the tool-call termination node as a step that can be skipped, on the assumption that the AI summary still runs after termination. The check places a summary tool after the termination node, compares whether summary text appears in the output, and treats the appearance of summary text as the observable result that termination did not take effect.
How to verify the setup
- Feed the three material sentences of the hypothetical sample and the draft sentence. Compare the draft sentence "has been signed for, lacks a basis, and rejection is recommended" against the material text on subject, object, date and field, checking whether the subject, period and field are the same. The material text records only the fact of receipt; it does not record a basis for rejection, so the draft sentence is not supported by the material. Record the result as unsupported rather than as a contradiction.
- Feed the variant of the hypothetical sample that lacks dispatch evidence. Compare whether the model calls the dispatch-verification tool and observe the call record. If no call occurs, record it as a non-call under a missing required parameter, without inferring a system error.
- Feed a paper sample with an empty result and compare whether the downstream design carries that empty result forward as pending verification, observing whether an automatic rejection or an automatic approval appears. If one appears, record it as a downstream design gap, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty result.
All three verification steps are paper checks. They were not executed and do not confirm any real order, authorisation or business action. Retrieval and similarity scores do not carry permission or entity-isolation duties. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be jointly associated; check the identifiers and exclude those that do not match. Where a document field has not been provided, it remains unknown. A pending request is not an approval, an offered option is not an execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.