Identity and authorization
Who is the agent, which systems can it access, and which actions is it permitted to perform?
Identity, permissions, and tool-call controls answer whether an agent can act. They do not fully answer whether the facts and system states it depends on are true, or whether the workflow is safe to continue.
An agent may use the correct identity, call an approved tool, receive a successful response, and still leave the intended outcome incomplete.
Who is the agent, which systems can it access, and which actions is it permitted to perform?
Is the agent overprivileged, off-task, or calling an allowed tool in a dangerous way?
Did the required outcome actually happen, and are the conditions for the next workflow action now true?
An agent is asked to power on a cloud machine. The provider reports that the asynchronous action completed, but the resource itself is still off. If the next action continues from the response alone, the workflow now depends on something that is not true.
The dangerous part is not necessarily malicious behavior. It is a valid action followed by an invalid assumption.
Autonomous systems increasingly coordinate multiple tools, systems, agents, and persistent memories. A wrong state early in the trajectory can become the assumed foundation for every action that follows.
The agent observes a state that has changed, reads only one part of a multi-system outcome, or treats eventual consistency as completion.
A provider acknowledges an operation or completes a control-plane action without proving the downstream resource condition.
One agent passes a claim to another, and the receiving workflow continues without checking the authoritative source.
Closing a ticket, notifying a customer, or starting the next operation becomes unsafe when a prerequisite remains unproven.