Define the action before the agent
The first design question for an agent should be about its work. What can it read? What can it change? Which actions have consequences outside the system? A tool that drafts a response has a different boundary from one that sends it. A tool that suggests a record update has a different boundary from one that applies it. Describe these actions in ordinary language, then decide where authority belongs. That makes the permission design easier to understand and review.
Give reviewers enough context
An approval request is only useful if someone can make an informed decision. Show the proposed action, the relevant source material, the intended destination and any important uncertainty. Make the difference between a suggestion and a completed action clear. A reviewer should be able to edit, reject or ask for more information without losing the thread of the task. When review feels like a guessing exercise, people may develop the habit of approving without checking.
Match the boundary to the consequence
Not every step needs the same level of intervention. A business can choose to automate a low-impact, reversible action within clear limits while requiring approval for a consequential change. Document those choices and test them as part of the workflow. Include cases where a request is unclear, a tool returns incomplete information or an action is attempted twice. The goal is a consistent system of authority that the people operating it can explain.
Make stopping and recovery practical
Human control includes the ability to pause a workflow and understand what has already happened. Keep a useful record of tool calls, decisions and outcomes, with care for the sensitive information those records may contain. Plan how to retry safely, recover from partial completion and escalate to a person. A clear operating path matters most when the system encounters a case its designers did not anticipate.
Improve the boundary with experience
Once people use the system, review the places where they intervene. Repeated corrections can reveal missing context, a weak integration or an action that needs a different approval rule. Use that feedback alongside evaluation cases to improve the workflow. The aim is useful autonomy with understandable limits, shaped around the responsibility the business is prepared to delegate.