mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Authorization Architectures for Tool-Using AI Agents

arXiv 2609.15906 ↗First posted 14 Sep 2026cs.CRcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-using artificial intelligence (AI) agents, systems that autonomously invoke application programming interfaces (APIs), databases, browsers, and inter-agent protocols such as the Model Context Protocol (MCP), are becoming production infrastructure. Yet the security model governing when an agent is authorized to act on a human's behalf remains underdeveloped. Trustworthy human-AI systems require that every consequential agent action be traceable to a human principal, bounded by what that human actually delegated, and contestable after the fact; few documented deployments satisfy all three properties reliably and end to end. Existing literature addresses fragments of this problem in isolation, credential management for non-human identities, classical access control models, prompt injection, and audit trails, while giving little attention to the authorization decision point itself, the moment a tool invocation occurs, and mechanisms that make that decision correct, enforceable, and accountable. This review introduces a principal hierarchy spanning human user, operator/deployer, orchestrator agent, sub-agent, and tool endpoint as an organizing framework, and examines five interdependent layers: agent identity and credential lifecycle; delegation and scope propagation across multi-hop chains; runtime enforcement and just-in-time authorization at policy enforcement points (PEPs); prompt injection as an authorization bypass that breaks the principal hierarchy; and auditability, provenance, and non-repudiation. Drawing on a structured narrative review of 89 primary sources screened from approximately 180 candidates published between 2023 and 2026, we propose seven structural requirements, derive a four-layer reference architecture, apply the requirements to three deployable reference configurations, and identify runtime enforcement and aggregation bounds as the principal unresolved gaps.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Authorization Propagation in Multi-Agent AI Systems: Identity Governance as Infrastructure
  2. 2026Before the Tool Call: Deterministic Pre-Action Authorization for Autonomous AI Agents
  3. 2025Authenticated Delegation and Authorized AI Agents
  4. 2026Overlaying Governance: A Compositional Authorization Framework for Delegation and Scope in Agentic AI
  5. 2026Janus: a Playground for User-Involved Agentic Permission Management
  6. 2026Digital Identity for Agentic Systems: Toward a Portable Authorization Standard for Autonomous Agents
  7. 2026How Agents Ask for Permission: User Permissions for AI Agents, from Interfaces to Enforcement
  8. 2026HDP: A Lightweight Cryptographic Protocol for Human Delegation Provenance in Agentic AI Systems