The New Open AI Agent Builder is Not an Agent Builder At All

Many products announced as “AI agents” are not truly agents but workflows with a fancy coat of paint. OpenAI’s Agent Builder is the latest to draw headlines, but behind the marketing are fundamental architectural differences that matter to anyone building robust AI applications.

Agents vs. Workflows: The Heart of the Matter

The distinction isn’t just semantics, it’s about where the intelligence happens. True agents are large language models that dynamically control their own processes, deciding in real-time which tools to use, how to plan each step, when to seek feedback, and how to adapt when things go off track. In contrast, most point-and-click “agent builders” set up strict predefined paths: inputs go in, the system marches through a set orchestration, and, with luck, spits back an answer. If you ever needed more flexibility, creativity, or the capacity to recover from error, these rigid workflows fall short.

The Workflows that Masquerade as Agents

OpenAI’s Agent Builder lets developers visually string together prompt chains and call APIs or tools in a predefined sequence. These setups feel like agents, especially for simple automations, but they remain fundamentally prescriptive. They follow scripted paths and rarely deviate from the hardcoded workflow. Here are a few examples:

• A customer support bot that triages and looks up common questions using document search and knowledge bases.
• A sales assistant bot that chats with leads, qualifies them, and schedules calls using APIs.
• An intelligent document processor that ingests contracts, compares versions, and answers questions about changes.
• An internal monitoring bot that watches business metrics and drafts alerts when anomalies appear.

Why This Matters: True Agents Rise to Real-World Challenges

Real agents, like those documented by Anthropic, thrive in environments where requirements can’t be predicted in advance, where each input might require a new plan, and every step needs context-aware choices. Examples include coding assistants that analyze and resolve complex issues across multiple files, support bots interacting with customer databases and updating tickets, and autonomous researchers gathering information and refining their answers until a high-quality solution emerges. It’s the difference between a static assembly line and an expert problem solver.

The Risks of Conflating Agents and Workflows

Calling workflows “agents” might help companies market their tools, but it misleads users, leading to mismatched expectations and wasted investment. Quick wins with workflow engines can stall as projects grow: suddenly, cost, latency, and brittleness take center stage. Teams often find themselves refactoring, stripping away layers of abstraction, and wishing they’d started with simpler approaches, like direct LLM API calls, openly composable integrations, and clear, easy-to-debug interfaces.

Conclusion: Choose the right tool/technology

This isn’t about labeling workflows “bad”, it’s about clarity and choosing the right tool for the job. It’s problematic when even software developers don’t understand the crucial difference between workflows and true AI agents. Use real AI agents only when you truly need the autonomy they provide. If your task can be accomplished with simple API calls, do that. It’s cheaper, faster, and easier to maintain.

If your use case requires complex but predictable logic, workflows like OpenAI’s Agent Builder, n8n, or Zapier will serve you well. These tools speed development for many practical automation needs.

But when your problem demands unbounded adaptability, changing plans on the fly, retrieving context, and synthesizing new information dynamically, that is when you turn to real AI agents built on frameworks designed for true agentic behavior.

P.S. In the next article, we'll discuss the best tools to use for building real agents 🤖

\n

\n