Give agents bounded authority. Put human review where actions are consequential, difficult to reverse, or outside the agreed operating scope.
Map the decisions, not just the tasks
An agent might gather information, draft a message, update a record, and trigger a downstream process in a single workflow. Those steps carry different consequences. Treating them as one automation decision makes it harder to set useful controls.
List each action and ask what could happen if it is wrong. Consider who is affected, how quickly an error would be noticed, and whether the action can be undone. A draft for internal review and an external commitment should not receive the same authority simply because the same model produces both.
Make approval meaningful
A reviewer needs enough context to make a decision: the proposed action, its supporting information, the relevant constraints, and any uncertainty. A queue full of unexplained approve buttons shifts the burden to people without helping them exercise judgment.
Define routing rules in advance. Routine, reversible actions can follow a different path from unusual cases. Add escalation for missing information, conflicting records, or requests outside the intended scope. A confidence score can inform this process, but it should not stand in for an assessment of business consequences.
Learn from the handoffs
Track where reviewers intervene, what they change, and why an action is declined. These signals help identify weak instructions, missing context, and processes that need a different design. Review the pattern of exceptions alongside time saved.
Keep a trace of the information used and the action taken. Revisit permissions as the workflow changes, and make it straightforward to pause automation. Well-designed controls let a team increase useful autonomy with evidence, rather than assuming more autonomy is always better.