Asked about Failures, parallel calls and keeping results small
How do you stop an agent taking a destructive action?
An answer that works
Architecturally, not by instruction. Scope the tool's permissions, require an explicit confirmation argument, add a human approval gate, and make the operation idempotent so a repeat is harmless. Prompt instructions alone are not a security boundary.
Then they push further
Would you rely on the system prompt saying never delete anything?
No. Instructions make it rarer but they are not a control. The control is in code: do not give the agent a delete tool, or require human approval before one runs, and scope credentials so the action is impossible even if requested.
Which actions need a person in the loop?
Ones that are irreversible, costly, or visible to other people: payments and refunds above a threshold, deletions, messages sent to customers. Reads and reversible changes can usually run unattended.
What gets marked up
Strong answers put the control in permissions and code, not in the prompt, and reason about reversibility. Weak answers rely on instructions.
Reading an answer is not being able to give one. The section that teaches this is Failures, parallel calls and keeping results small, 4 hours of Tool calling.
Learn this properlyAlso asked about Tool calling