An agent saying “the room is available” differs from booking it for an employee and changing another team's schedule. When buying an AI agent, do not stop at saying it connects to a system. Specify its actions, whose authority they use, their limits and evidence of compliance.
A starting point may be reading permitted information and proposing a step for an authorized person to review. Some limited actions may operate under clear policy. Authority should be designed into access, tools and tests, rather than expressed only as an instruction to act carefully.
Name the action and affected resources
In a fictional office sharing meeting rooms, an agent helps employees find availability and propose bookings. An employee can use specified rooms but cannot cancel another team's booking. The example excludes commercial booking sales, payments and external visitor management.
Replace “manage appointments” with separate actions: read availability, prepare a request, confirm, amend and cancel. Identify each action's necessary data and the user it represents. A broadly privileged technical account should not erase a limited user's access boundaries.
An authority matrix before adding tools
| Example action | Proposed boundary | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Read availability | Permitted rooms and times without unnecessary details. | Results stay within the user's scope. |
| Prepare proposal | Display room, time and duration without booking. | A proposal alone creates no executed record. |
| Confirm booking | Authorized approval of specified details plus system validation. | One correct booking or an understandable failure. |
| Amend or cancel | Separate rules based on ownership and policy. | Previous approval does not become open-ended authority. |
| Out-of-scope request | Reject or refer to an authorized owner. | No execution through an alternative tool. |
This example policy requires organizational approval; it is not a security classification for every agent. The same action's sensitivity may vary by information, user and context. The implementer explains enforceable boundaries and changes needed in connected systems or approval mechanisms.
Approval belongs to details, not “yes” alone
The reviewer should understand the room, date, time, duration and booking owner. If details change after approval, ask how this is detected and when a new proposal is required. Approval for one room should not silently authorize another room or time without a known policy.
Identify the approver, request validity period and behavior after refusal or no response. Amazon Bedrock documents user confirmation configured for specific action-group functions. This illustrates a capability needing configuration, not availability in every product or proof that a confirmation prompt resolves all authorization problems.
System checks still apply at execution
The room may become unavailable during approval, or the employee may lose permission. Request fresh validation of important conditions at execution and a clear incomplete outcome if they changed. A user's approval does not establish continuing availability or successful execution.
OWASP discusses risks from excessive functionality, permissions and autonomy in language-model systems. The relevant principle is limiting tools and access, not claiming one matrix grants security accreditation. Ask the provider to demonstrate controls in the connected system beyond a polite refusal in conversation.
A record connecting request, approval and result
Specify review information: requester, intended action, approved details, approver, decision time, execution outcome and reference where available. Select what operations need without placing excess sensitive information into broadly accessible conversations or reports.
In the example, an administrator can find whether a booking request remained a proposal, was rejected or succeeded, and which details were approved. A connection failure leaving the outcome uncertain should produce a visible unresolved state and follow-up owner. No error message is not proof of success.
Testing authority boundaries
- Request information inside and outside the permitted scope, checking actual returned data.
- Prepare and reject a proposal, then verify that no booking was created.
- Approve specified details, then change an important condition in the test environment under the agreed scenario.
- Revoke user permission before execution while the conversation remains open.
- Test a knowledge source containing unapproved instructions and verify that it grants no new authority.
- Review system records and outcomes, including execution failure and a repeated request.
The agent demonstration evaluation guide covers general tests, while knowledge readiness covers answer sources. When requesting a business agent from Nextwave, this matrix puts authority itself into delivery scope, with a clear owner for later changes.
Sources and preparation limits
Amazon Bedrock user confirmation and OWASP Excessive Agency, 2025 edition were opened on 4 November 2026. The example and matrix are illustrative, not security guarantees. AI assisted preparation with content and source review; no client-system actions were performed.
