Why use multiple agents at all?
A single agent tasked with researching, writing, checking, and coordinating quickly becomes confusing and error-prone. Splitting the work across several specialized agents – each with a clearly scoped role – makes the system easier to follow and easier to control.
Typical role division
Research agent
Gathers and checks information from approved sources.
Execution agent
Does the actual task – drafting text, updating a record, an email draft – based on the research gathered.
Critic agent
Checks the execution agent's result against set criteria before it moves on – a kind of built-in second opinion.
Coordinator agent
Distributes subtasks to the other agents and decides when the overall result is done.
The advantage: control instead of a black box
Because each agent has a clearly scoped role and its own tool permissions (see module 13, security in production), you can trace exactly which step did what – and where a human approval step should be built in, if in doubt.
Why this matters for you as a decision-maker
Multi-agent systems sound more complex, but they're often the more reliable choice compared to a single all-rounder agent – because the built-in check (the critic agent) catches errors more easily. In a vendor pitch that mentions "multiple agents," it's worth asking: which agent is allowed to do what, and who checks the result?