Does this task need an agent or a clear rule?
Start with the decisions inside the work. Use a fixed workflow when the next step is known. Consider an agent when the process must interpret context and choose among useful actions.
By Oğuz Erol
Write down one complete task
Take an actual item from arrival to completion. List its input, the systems involved, the decisions made, and the output someone uses. “Handle sales operations” is too broad. “Turn a new equipment enquiry into a checked CRM record and a draft follow-up task” gives you something to design and evaluate.
Separate moving information from deciding what it means. Copying a validated customer identifier into a task system is different from deciding which company an incomplete message refers to. The two steps can belong in the same process while using different methods.
Use automation for stable rules
A fixed workflow is a strong fit when the trigger and next action can be described in advance. It can validate fields, calculate values, call an API, and route known exceptions without asking a model to interpret every record.
For example, a completed form with a customer ID could create a task for the account owner. If the ID is missing, the item goes into a review queue. The workflow does not need to invent a match to keep moving.
- Inputs follow a known format.
- The same condition should produce the same action.
- Missing information has a defined exception path.
Consider an agent for bounded interpretation
An agent becomes useful when several next steps are possible and context determines which one to take. It might read an enquiry, find supporting records, notice a missing specification, and prepare a focused question. Give it a narrow goal and access to the evidence needed for that goal.
Tool access is a separate design decision. An interface such as MCP can connect compatible AI clients to external capabilities, but a connection does not decide who may change a record. Read, draft, approve, and publish should have explicit boundaries.
Combine the two around a reviewable result
A practical design often uses rules for receipt, validation, identity checks, and record updates. A model handles an interpretation step in the middle. The workflow then checks the proposed output before handing it to a person or performing an authorized action.
For the equipment enquiry, the output might contain a linked CRM record, a summary supported by the message, missing fields, and a draft task. A person approves any uncertain customer match. This is an illustrative design, not a claim that an installed integration already performs it.
Compare total operating effort
Test both approaches against representative examples. Record successful completion, incorrect actions, review time, recovery work, and ongoing costs. Include duplicate requests, unavailable services, and contradictory input. A more flexible process is useful only if its results justify the additional checks.
If a rule handles the task well, keep the rule. If interpretation is the recurring bottleneck, pilot that part with limited authority. Expand after observing the difficult cases, with a named person responsible for exceptions.