What the documents look like
Inbound receiving and putaway is the first book-to-physical confirmation when goods enter the warehouse. The generic brief for this category lists WMS, ERP purchasing, supplier delivery notes and barcode scanning as the main data sources, with purchase arrival notes, inbound acceptance sheets, putaway tasks and discrepancy reports as the daily documents. Data updates per batch and per day, so an operating report or exception review has to align quantities, locations and statuses across several documents produced by different parties.
The three most time-consuming steps in this category are checking arrived quantities, printing barcodes and assigning storage locations. Each of them produces fields that a later report must reconcile: declared quantity on the purchase arrival note, accepted quantity and signature on the inbound acceptance sheet, task state on the putaway task, and variance state on the discrepancy report. When a tool call or plugin sits between these documents and a downstream report, the alignment problem becomes a field-level problem rather than a document-level one.
The brief marks this category's confidence as broadly indicative rather than settled. That matters for implementation: a report or review step should compare specific fields on named documents, and any field the documents do not carry stays unknown.
Constraints at the tool calls step
The tool call node decides whether to invoke a tool from the tool introduction, the parameter introductions and whether each parameter is required. System module parameters are already fixed; plugin parameters are configurable. When a required parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may not call the tool, and the documented remedy is to guide the user to supply the parameter through prompts. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module by dragging the connection point, and the introduction of a connected tool can be edited so that the call timing is more precise. The official guidance recommends starting with a small number of tools and tuning before adding more.
The tool call termination node ends the current call. It does not call other tools, and it does not call the AI to summarize tool results. The custom tool variable node extends tool inputs so that nodes not treated as tool parameters can still be invoked, provided a parameter description is filled in.
Retrieval results do not constitute authorization. Report generation and discrepancy handling need downstream implementation, and an empty retrieval result does not by itself authorize or block any business action.
Hypothetical drill sample, labelled as such and not drawn from any real record: the purchase arrival note reads "Supplier A delivered on 10 March 2025 under inbound receipt RK-0310, item A declared quantity 200 pieces." The inbound acceptance sheet reads "RK-0310 item A actually received 180 pieces, variance 20 pieces, acceptance clerk has signed." The draft sentence under review is "The arrival variance for RK-0310 item A has been confirmed by the supplier and the accounting adjustment is complete." The draft sentence lacks supplier confirmation and accounting adjustment evidence, so it is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Hypothetical setting and comparison method for this page |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | Documented node behaviour | State the purpose and the situations in which the tool should not be called; compare with the fields the draft sentence needs |
| Tool parameters | Configurable for plugins | Compare each parameter introduction and required flag against the actual call request; record a non-call when a required parameter is absent |
| Tool connection | Manual review action | Connect a small number of tools to the tool call module and observe the call records one by one |
| Tool call termination | Documented node behaviour | Place after a tool to end the current call; check that no AI summary of tool results appears |
| Custom tool variable | Configurable field | Fill in the parameter description and check whether the corresponding node is invoked |
| Retrieval result handling | Requires separate downstream implementation | Use the paper input [] to check the downstream design; an empty result is not treated as authorization |
The starting point for the drill is a small tool set, chosen because the official guidance advises tuning a small number before expanding. The comparison method is the call record against the configured introductions and required flags, not an assumed default.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieved inbound acceptance sheet as supplier confirmation. Input is the RK-0310 acceptance sheet; the comparison object is a supplier confirmation record; the observable result is that a draft sentence is unsupported when only the acceptance clerk signature is present.
- Treating a tool parameter introduction as a guarantee of execution. Input is the plugin parameter description; the comparison object is the actual call request; the observable result is a possible non-call when a required parameter is missing.
- Treating a discrepancy report awaiting review as a completed accounting adjustment. Input is the discrepancy report status; the comparison object is an accounting adjustment record; the observable result is that the item remains pending verification when the status does not state an adjustment.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical purchase arrival note and inbound acceptance sheet above. Compare the draft sentence "confirmed by the supplier and the accounting adjustment is complete" against the parties, quantities and signature fields in the two documents. The support condition is met only when a supplier confirmation and an accounting adjustment record both appear. With only the acceptance clerk signature, the result is unsupported.
- Input the hypothetical tool parameter configuration. Compare the parameter introductions and required flags against the actual call request, and observe whether a non-call record appears when a required parameter is absent. Do not presuppose a deterministic failure.
- Input the paper empty result []. Compare the downstream handling design to see whether it keeps an empty result separate from authorized execution, and observe whether the retrieval result is still treated as an executable basis. The condition is met when the downstream design explicitly records the gap.
Across all three checks, the same subject, the same period and the same field must be compared. A pending review does not by itself show a lack of operating permission, and a signature, a reached cooperation and an effective contract are three distinct facts. Where a field is not stated, the result stays unsupported or pending verification, and the evidence gap is recorded rather than filled in.