What the documents look like
Trade returns and claims handle reverse logistics and liability determination after export. The working materials arrive from customer email, quality inspection reports, customs systems and insurer claim systems, and the day-to-day documents are the return agreement, the claim letter, the quality report and the return customs declaration. Updates are irregular and occur once per case. Operating reports and exception reviews need to reconcile these materials into a checkable basis, and the tool call and plugin layer decides which material or system module the model reaches for, based on tool introductions and parameters. One return shipment may simultaneously have an agreement text, an inspection conclusion and a customs record, so report figures must align subject, object and period case by case.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool consists of an introduction and parameters. The introduction tells the model what the tool is for. Parameters split into fixed parameters for system modules and configurable parameters for plugins, and two key values inside a parameter are the parameter description and whether it is required. A tool without parameters is judged directly from its introduction. For a tool with parameters, when no parameter is required the model may still call the tool even without a fitting value in context, and it may fabricate a value; when a required parameter has no fitting value in context the model may not call the tool, and prompting can guide the user to supply it. Models that support function calling can call several tools at once. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module; a connected tool separates tool input from ordinary input, and its introduction can be edited to sharpen the call timing. Starting with a small number of tools and tuning before adding more is recommended. A tool call termination node attached after a tool forcibly ends that tool call, calls no further tools, and no longer calls AI to answer about the tool result. Custom tool variables extend variable input so that nodes not treated as tool parameters can still be called.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Material text supplied for checking: on 10 March 2025 the after-sales department of a trading company received a customer email stating that a batch of lighting fixtures shipped in January 2025 had cracked housings, accompanied by third-party inspection report number QC-2025-0310, whose conclusion was transport vibration. A draft return agreement states a return quantity of 200 units, with the signature field blank. A draft claim letter requests compensation of 40,000 in goods payment and has not been submitted to the insurer. Draft sentence to be judged: "The return cause has been confirmed, the claim evidence has been submitted, and the goods payment loss has been determined." That sentence writes pending states as completed states.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point for this page | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State input conditions and the situations in which the tool should not be called | Compare sentence by sentence with the material states in the sample; the introduction covers return cause and claim evidence as two input classes |
| Parameter description | Fill separately for return declaration number, inspection report number and claim amount | Compare with the sample material fields; a missing field counts as insufficient parameters |
| Required parameter | Set the return declaration number as required, the rest per case | The signature field of the draft return agreement is blank in the sample; compare to confirm whether the required parameter is present |
| Tool connection | Connect the inspection report reader and the return customs declaration reader first | These correspond to the two materials in the sample; add more after tuning |
| Tool call termination | Attach the termination node after the inspection report reader | The sample does not need AI summarization of the inspection conclusion; compare whether output goes directly downstream |
| Custom tool variable | Add a parameter description for the claim amount field | The draft claim letter in the sample contains an amount; compare whether that node can be called |
Three common errors
- Writing the tool introduction as general description without input conditions and without the situations in which the tool should not be called. The signature field of the draft return agreement is blank in the sample, yet the tool may still be called, and the report then treats an unsigned agreement as an effective basis. The check supplies the sample material text, compares whether the tool introduction covers signature status, and observes whether a call still occurs while the signature field is blank.
- Treating the parameter description as a guarantee of execution. The draft claim letter in the sample has not been submitted to the insurer; if the parameter description only carries an amount field, the model may call the claim tool on the strength of the amount. The check supplies the draft sentence and the material text, compares whether the parameter is required against the actual material state, and observes whether a claim-related call still fires when submission evidence is absent.
- Not attaching the termination node after the inspection report reader, so AI keeps summarizing the inspection conclusion and the report basis absorbs model paraphrase. The check supplies inspection report number QC-2025-0310, compares output before and after the termination node, and observes whether downstream directly receives the original conclusion.
How to verify the setup
- Supply the sample material text and the draft sentence, compare the three items "confirmed", "submitted" and "determined" in the draft sentence against the actual material states, and observe whether all three are judged unsupported or pending. The materials show only the email, the inspection report and drafts; the signature field is blank, the claim has not been submitted, and the amount has not been determined, so all three remain evidence gaps.
- Supply the draft return agreement, compare whether a tool call is triggered while the signature field is blank, and observe whether the introduction and required parameter settings prevent an unsigned agreement from being treated as an effective basis. If a call occurs, record it as a configuration gap and do not infer that business action was executed.
- Supply inspection report number QC-2025-0310, compare the output path before and after the termination node, and observe whether downstream directly receives the inspection conclusion. If AI summarization still appears, record it as termination not behaving as intended. All three verifications are paper checks; no test is claimed, and missing evidence stays missing.