Photo: Lukas Blazek / Pexels. Illustrative photograph. Photo source · Pexels licence
Keep human approval for actions that create commitments, expose sensitive information or are difficult to reverse. An AI system's ability to call a tool does not establish that it should use every function without review.
Separate preparation from execution
An assistant can draft a response or prepare a proposed record change. Sending it, issuing a refund or changing access is a separate step. Make that distinction visible in workflow design and permissions.
For example, an assistant could prepare a reply to an unusual complaint and show the supporting information. A person can review any price, exception or promise before the message is sent.
Define the boundary concretely
List permitted automatic actions and those needing review. Include limits, authorised destinations and what happens when information is incomplete. “Use good judgement” is not a sufficient rule for consequential actions.
Restrict credentials and tools to the required task. Keep an appropriate record of proposed and completed actions without retaining unnecessary private content. Provide a way to stop unreliable behaviour.
Test difficult cases
Try ambiguous requests, conflicting documents, duplicate events and unavailable services. Check whether the system pauses rather than inventing approval. Ensure a person can correct a draft before it becomes an external action.
OWASP's recent agentic-AI roundup reinforces the importance of authority boundaries. The design question is what the system can affect, not how confidently it explains itself.
I scope AI automation and business applications. Explore my work or describe your proposed workflow. Read What business information should I keep out of an AI tool? and What happens when an automation fails halfway through?.
Start with limited authority. Approval works best when a person can review a concrete, understandable action before it happens.