An agent is useful when a task needs decisions about what to do next based on intermediate results. Many tasks already have a known sequence and work well as deterministic workflows. Choose autonomy because the task needs it, not because it makes the architecture sound more advanced.
Compare two designs
For support drafting, a fixed workflow can fetch a ticket, search documentation, generate a draft, and show it to an operator. The application controls every step. An agent could instead decide whether to search again or request another tool result. That flexibility introduces more possible execution paths.
Start by writing the fixed sequence and listing exceptions. “The first search sometimes misses the right policy” may justify a bounded search refinement. It does not automatically justify unrestricted tool access or multiple agents.
Define the boundary
Specify allowed tools, maximum steps, total time, and conditions for asking a human. A task result should include a completion state and a reason when the system stops. Stopping safely is a valid outcome when evidence or authority is missing.
Exercise
Implement the fixed workflow as a sequence of fake tool calls. Design an alternative that can repeat search at most twice. Run both against cases with missing evidence, irrelevant results, and an unavailable service.
Check: explain which cases benefit from adaptive behavior. Compare completed tasks, failures, time, and number of calls. Keep the fixed workflow if autonomy adds complexity without a measurable benefit.