Adding another agent creates another participant with partial context. That can make a task faster when the work is separable. It can also multiply uncertainty when several agents interpret the same vague objective and modify the same state.
Before delegating, I ask whether each task has an independent input, a useful output and a clear owner. If those boundaries are missing, the coordination problem may be larger than the original job.
Delegate a deliverable
“Be the reviewer” is a role description. “Check this proposed change against these three acceptance criteria and return evidence for each finding” is a task. The second gives both the worker and the coordinator a way to determine what completion means.
I would include the relevant artifact version, constraints, allowed sources and expected result structure. A worker should know which assumptions are fixed and which questions it is allowed to investigate. It should also have a way to return insufficient evidence without inventing a complete answer.
This is the standard I aim for in the engineering and automation work I do through Wizutech: delegation should produce something another person or process can inspect, accept or reject.
Prefer separate outputs before shared writes
A research task can often be split into source groups, with each agent producing its own findings. A code task can sometimes be split into isolated changes. Both patterns are easier to reconcile when workers return separate artifacts before changing shared state.
If several workers need to modify the same resource, the system needs an explicit coordination rule. A shared document does not become safe for concurrent edits simply because every writer has a different job title.
I would make write ownership visible and require a current version at the merge boundary. When two valid outputs conflict, a coordinator needs to resolve the disagreement. Silently accepting the last result to arrive is a timing policy, not a quality decision.
A reviewer needs independent evidence
A second agent repeating the first agent’s conclusion is not strong verification. If both received the same incomplete summary, their agreement may reflect a shared omission. The reviewer should inspect the relevant artifact and source evidence against explicit criteria.
For a research summary, that might mean checking whether each major claim is supported by its cited source. For a proposed system change, it might mean checking the affected interface and the stated acceptance conditions. The review should produce findings that can be examined without trusting the reviewer’s confidence alone.
The approach connects with evidence-preserving research. Provenance gives the coordinator something concrete to compare when agents disagree.
Delegation does not expand authority
A worker should receive only the access needed for its task. The parent agent’s broader context is not a reason to pass along every credential, private record or available tool. A delegated request should also retain the original user’s constraints.
If a worker discovers work outside that scope, it can return a proposal. It should not redefine its own task and continue with a more powerful tool simply because the additional action appears useful.
Approval tied to a specific proposal remains important when a coordinator combines several workers’ suggestions. The merged plan may have consequences that no individual worker evaluated.
Measure the coordination overhead
I would assess the complete task: accepted output, unresolved disagreements, repeated work, latency and total cost. A system with many active workers can still spend most of its effort repairing inconsistent assumptions.
Multi-agent coordination earns its place when the boundaries let workers contribute useful, inspectable outputs. Start with the decomposition and the merge rule. The number of agents should follow from those decisions.
Updated 30 September 2026.