What the documents look like
Peak-sale warehouse and delivery scheduling centers on short-window peak capacity and on arrangements for people, vehicles and yard space. This differs from routine multi-warehouse inventory synchronization, which works toward steady balance across locations. The main inputs are historical peak-sale orders, platform campaign registrations, WMS capacity figures and courier pickup capability. Updates arrive per campaign and daily. For operating reports and exception reviews, the working materials are the peak-sale forecast table, staffing rosters, courier assurance plans and the daily exception report. The most time-consuming steps are forecasting the order peak, arranging temporary staff and coordinating courier vehicles.
In a tool-call and plugin step, these materials can serve as tool parameter inputs, as nodes connected to a tool-call module, or as sources that a downstream AI summary draws on. Their status and authorization boundary must be checked item by item. A forecast table marked for review, a courier plan that has only been quoted, and a handover request that does not state a scheduling authorization are three different states, and each one limits what a drafted sentence may claim.
Constraints at the tool calls step
The tool-call node rests on three elements: the tool introduction, the parameter introduction and whether a parameter is required. The model decides whether to call a tool from these elements together with the context. For system modules the tool parameters are already fixed; for plugins the tool parameters are configurable. A tool with no parameters is judged from its introduction alone. For a tool with parameters, a parameter that is not required may still be called even when the context holds no suitable value, and the model may sometimes fabricate a value. A required parameter that has no suitable value may lead the model not to call the tool at all; prompt wording can guide the user to supply the missing value.
In advanced orchestration, a diamond appears at the head of an available tool, and that diamond can be connected to the diamond at the bottom of the tool-call module. A connected tool has its tool input separated from ordinary input, and its introduction can be edited so that the call timing becomes more precise. The documentation advises adding tools a few at a time and tuning before going further. By default, after a tool-call node decides to call a tool, the tool result returns to the AI so the AI can summarize it. The tool-call termination node ends the current call: it stops further tool calls and stops the AI from answering on the tool result. The custom tool variable node extends tool variable input, so that nodes not treated as tool parameters, or nodes that cannot be called as tools, can carry a parameter description and be called through the tool-call path.
Similarity scores and retrieval do not carry authorization or entity-isolation duties. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers must be checked and non-matching items excluded.
Hypothetical paper exercise
The following is a paper exercise and does not refer to any real party or system record.
Source text one: "Peak-sale forecast table V3, subject: one East China warehouse, peak-day order volume estimated at three times the ordinary day, prepared seven days before the campaign, status is awaiting operations review."
Source text two: "Courier assurance plan draft, subject: one courier provider, committed pickup vehicles: eight, effective range: campaign day one to day three, status: commercial quotation issued, not signed."
Draft sentence to be judged: "The warehouse peak-day capacity has received operations approval, the courier vehicle assurance is in effect, and scheduling can proceed directly."
The scope of review is limited to these two source texts and to this scheduling handover request.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists only settings or implementation checks relevant to this page. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise and state the comparison method; they are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Check and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State the purpose, the input conditions and the situations in which the tool should not be called | Compare with the source text status; confirm the introduction does not describe a pending review as an approval |
| Required parameter | Treat "approval status" and "effective range" as required | Inspect the model request for those parameters; when absent, record that no call was made |
| Tool connection | Connect only the forecast-table read tool and the daily-report query tool | Observe whether tool input and ordinary input are separated after connection |
| Tool-call termination | Place it after the daily-report query tool | Confirm that execution past this node makes no further tool call and no AI summary |
| Custom tool variable | Fill in a parameter description for the roster node | Check whether the description matches the subject and period in the source texts |
| Retrieval scope | Limit to the handover materials for this exercise | Observe whether returned results come only from the given materials; treat an empty result as [] and check the downstream design against it |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review status as an approval. In source text one the forecast table status is "awaiting operations review." If the draft sentence says "has received operations approval," the input is the status field in the source text, the comparison is between "awaiting review" and "approved," and the observable result is that the two values are not the same. The sentence is not supported.
- Treating an unsigned quotation as being in effect. In source text two the courier plan status is "commercial quotation issued, not signed." If the draft sentence says "is in effect," the input is the status field in the source text, the comparison is between "not signed" and "in effect," and the observable result is that the two values are not the same. The sentence is not supported.
- Treating a tool introduction as a guarantee of execution. If the introduction states that a call completes the scheduling, the input is the introduction text, the comparison is against the documented role of an introduction, which is to tell the model what the tool is for, and the observable result is that an introduction produces no execution action. That wording goes beyond what the documentation states.
How to verify the setup
- Against source text one and the draft sentence "The warehouse peak-day capacity has received operations approval," input the forecast table status field "awaiting operations review." Compare whether "awaiting review" and "approved" are mutually exclusive values in the same field. When the observable result is that they are not the same, judge the sentence unsupported and record the evidence gap.
- Against source text two and the draft sentence "the courier vehicle assurance is in effect," input the courier plan status field "commercial quotation issued, not signed." Compare whether "not signed" and "in effect" are mutually exclusive values in the same field. When the observable result is that they are not the same, judge the sentence unsupported and keep the status pending verification.
- Against the draft sentence "scheduling can proceed directly," input the authorization scope of this scheduling handover request. Compare whether the request states an authorization to execute scheduling. When the observable result is that no such authorization is stated, judge the authorization boundary unknown; retrieval or form collection does not constitute an authorization to execute scheduling.