What agents handle vs what they hand off

Agents are well-suited to the high-volume, lower-complexity tier of customer service: answering product questions, looking up account status, processing standard requests like returns or address changes, and triaging inbound contacts to the right team. They are not well-suited to high-stakes disputes, complex problem diagnosis requiring domain expertise, or situations where a customer needs empathy rather than information. The design decision is not whether to use agents but how to define the boundary — and how to ensure escalation happens reliably and promptly when that boundary is crossed.

What changes operationally

Deploying service agents changes the nature of human agent work rather than eliminating it. Human agents handle the cases the AI escalates — which tend to be the most complex and emotionally difficult. They also generate the feedback data that improves agent behavior over time. The team operating customer service agents needs to monitor escalation rates and reasons, because a rising escalation rate is often the first signal of a prompt or policy regression.

Risk and oversight requirements

Customer service agents act on behalf of the company in interactions that may have legal or financial consequences. They need defined and tested scope limits: what transaction types they can execute, what information they can share, what they are prohibited from promising. Prompt injection is a specific risk — customer inputs are attacker-controlled inputs — so agents must be designed to handle adversarial inputs without taking unauthorized actions. Audit trails of all agent actions are necessary for both quality management and dispute resolution.