AI Agent Permissions: A Proposed Workflow for Data, Tools, and Action Approval

AI Agent Permissions: A Proposed Workflow for Data, Tools, and Action Approval

Before delegating a task to an AI agent, write down the permission you intend to give. Our proposed starting point is a sentence with a clear object and endpoint: “Prepare a draft project update using these three documents, then return it for review.” Treat publication, changes to shared records, and messages to external recipients as separate decisions in this workflow.

This article offers an editorial design proposal, rather than a description of a particular product's controls. The permission brief, approval rules, and examples below are our recommendations for discussion and implementation in your chosen environment.

Write a permission brief before connecting tools

Our proposed permission brief has six fields: task owner, intended result, approved inputs, permitted operations, approval owner, and completion condition. Fill these in for one assignment. For a project update, the intended result might be a draft explaining completed work and open questions. The completion condition might be delivery of that draft to its owner, with no publication included.

Add explicit exclusions. In this example, we propose excluding unrelated project folders, personnel notes, changes to delivery commitments, and contact with customers. Use concrete names wherever possible. If the assignment later expands, revise the brief and ask the owner to authorize the revised scope. Under our convention, an instruction such as “finish the whole thing” is a request to clarify scope, rather than an authorization to perform every available operation.

Specify which information may enter the task

For the project update exercise, nominate a milestone sheet, an approved meeting summary, and a project description. Our proposed convention is to identify each input individually and state its permitted use. For example, allow the milestone sheet to support a progress summary, while requiring an owner to confirm any statement about an unapproved delivery date.

We also recommend writing a separate rule for what may appear in the output. Permission to consult a meeting summary should not, in our proposed workflow, automatically include permission to reproduce it in full. Ask the task owner to identify material approved for quotation, material approved only for background, and material excluded from publication. When an input is missing, have the agent request that specific item or return an explicit gap in the draft.

Describe operations more precisely than tool names

Our proposed tool list describes actions rather than simply naming applications. Write “read these documents,” “save one draft in this location,” or “propose changes to this record.” For the publishing example, reserve “publish this approved version to this destination” as a separate operation. Assign each operation an object, destination, and stopping point.

Before using this list, check which boundaries your selected environment actually supports. Record any boundary that remains a team procedure rather than an implemented setting. If a required restriction cannot be configured, our recommendation is to leave that step with a person and give the agent a narrower assignment. Do not mark a control as implemented merely because the same rule appears in a prompt. Make the permission brief reflect the arrangement you have actually established.

Choose a mode for each assignment

For planning purposes, we propose three modes: drafting, limited editing, and approved execution. In drafting mode, ask for a proposed artifact and unresolved questions. In limited editing mode, nominate a particular working document and the kinds of edits allowed. In approved execution mode, require a separate decision on a fully specified action packet.

These are our editorial categories, not a claim about standard product settings. Choose the mode separately for each assignment. A reasonable configuration for our example would permit a draft update, allow edits to a designated working copy, and reserve publication for explicit approval. If you want different rules for another task, write those rules into its brief instead of treating the previous assignment as continuing authorization.

Review a complete action packet

Our proposed approval packet contains the action, destination, exact content, attachments, and any requested changes to existing material. For a project update, include the final text, target page, visibility requested by the task owner, and supporting links. Name the person expected to approve it. Offer three responses: approve this packet, request changes, or decline execution.

We recommend a version-specific rule: approval applies only to the packet shown. A changed destination, revised paragraph, additional attachment, or different operation should return the packet to review under this convention. Avoid a generic approval message such as “go ahead” in the example procedure. Instead, record an instruction like “approve publication of version B to the named project page.” Choose an expiration condition as part of the same decision, such as the end of the assignment.

Separate content review from execution approval

Google's guidance calls for manual checking and review of AI-generated content for accuracy and trustworthiness before publication, including review of metadata and image alternative text. Google's guidance on generative AI content.

Our proposed workflow records content review and execution approval separately. The content reviewer answers whether the draft is acceptable. The execution approver answers whether the specified action should proceed with that version. You may assign both decisions to one person, but retain both questions in the packet. For the project update exercise, “the wording is approved” should remain a content decision until the owner separately approves the publication destination and operation.

Include all publication material in the proposed review scope. If the assignment includes a title, summary, or alternative text, present those items alongside the body. When an item is outside the assignment, mark it as excluded rather than silently adding it to the agent's work.

Ask for evidence alongside the draft

Google's content self-assessment guidance asks whether a page presents clear sourcing and background information about its author or publishing site. Google's guidance on helpful, reliable content.

For our project update scenario, request a small evidence note: which approved input supports each milestone statement, which questions remain open, and which proposed sentences need owner confirmation. This is our recommended review format. Do not ask the agent to disguise missing information with confident wording. In the exercise, an unconfirmed delivery date should remain a question for the owner. Decide explicitly whether the evidence note belongs in the published update or only in the review packet.

Rehearse the assignment in stages

Our proposed rehearsal begins with preparation only. Supply the selected inputs and ask for a draft without permission to publish. Review the result against the brief: did it stay within the requested topic, identify missing information, and present the material you asked for? Use the answers to revise the assignment instructions before introducing another operation.

Next, rehearse the approval decision without executing publication. Ask the reviewer to choose among approval, revision, and rejection using the complete packet. Finally, if the owner authorizes execution and the selected environment supports the required arrangement, perform the named operation. In this proposed sequence, each stage has its own endpoint. Do not interpret completion of the drafting exercise as permission to begin publication automatically.

Define what happens when the answer is no

Our proposed procedure should include an explicit rejection path. If the owner declines publication, end the execution request or return the draft for specified changes. If a required source is unavailable, return a question. If the requested destination changes, prepare a revised packet. Choose these responses before the rehearsal rather than asking the agent to improvise its own authority.

At closure, we recommend recording the task identifier, approved version, decision maker, requested operation, and reported result. Decide separately which supporting material belongs in that record. Review permissions granted for the assignment and close those intended only for its duration. Under our convention, a follow-up project update begins with a fresh brief, even when it resembles the previous task.

Turn the proposal into selection criteria

The Max AI registration page describes Max AI as an operating system for AI agents. Max AI registration.

Use the brief as your own checklist when evaluating a setup: can you nominate inputs, specify operations, identify an approver, review the exact action, and end the assignment? Verify each requirement in the environment you intend to use. Where a requirement is unsupported, keep the corresponding step with a person or revise the assignment. Start with one bounded workflow and document the configuration you choose before expanding its scope.