If you have ever shipped an “always-on” AI agent with a heartbeat, you will recognise the moment the excitement fades and Finance asks a simple question: why is this thing costing more every day, even when nothing is happening?
Most teams start with capability questions:
Then reality arrives, and the questions become operational:
Here’s the thing. “Always-on” sounds like maturity. In practice, it can also mean:
And that is before you even get to risk, compliance, and data retention.
When leaders talk about agent memory, it often sounds like a human metaphor. Useful, but dangerous if it drives the wrong design decisions.
One line I have been quoting to teams recently is this:
"In reality, agentic AI memory is fundamentally a data management challenge. If we treat it as mere memory, we will be repeating the same mistakes we made with early data lakes—ending up with ‘data swamps’ that are inaccessible, inconsistent, and unusable."
(https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/agentic-ai-memory-its-data-management-pravin-dwiwedi-jpnfe)
That framing changes what you prioritise:
This is why “always-on” systems can get expensive fast. They are not only generating tokens. They are also generating data, decisions, and organisational liability.
If you want an agent to behave coherently over time, you typically need it to retain long-term context beyond the model’s immediate context window.
As one practical explanation puts it:
"In agentic AI systems, retaining long-term context (beyond the LLM's limited context window) is essential for maintaining coherent decision history, personalization, and multi-step reasoning across sessions or interactions. A central memory acts as an external "brain" to store, retrieve, and synthesize past data/decisions, preventing loss of history."
(https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/central-memory-agentic-ai-long-term-context-decision-yerramsetti-l6voc)
That is the promise. The cost trap is how teams implement it:
The system feels “alive”. Your spend graph looks like a staircase.
When an agent runs continuously, it is easy to confuse activity with value. Leaders need a more disciplined operating model.
Ask these questions in your next steering meeting:
If you cannot answer those, you do not have an “AI strategy”. You have a cost leak with good branding.
Humans do not keep every detail of every day in working memory. We survive through routines:
Your agents need the same kind of boundaries, except the boundary is not emotional. It is economic, operational, and risk-based.
This is where design patterns start to matter more than raw model capability.
One good summary of that shift is:
"Agentic AI Design Patterns are emerging as the backbone of real-world, production-grade AI systems, and this is gold from Andrew Ng. Most current LLM applications are linear: prompt → output. But real-world autonomy demands more. It requires agents that can reflect, adapt, plan, and collaborate, over extended tasks and in dynamic environments."
(https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aishwarya-srinivasan_agentic-ai-design-patterns-are-emerging-as-activity-7382092828228673537-1fNP)
Design patterns are not a technical indulgence. They are how you stop paying for “vibes” and start paying for outcomes.
This is leadership-level, not code-level. You can implement it with your preferred stack, whether that is LangChain, CrewAI, Python, Docker, or n8n. The point is the operating decisions.
Set a budget like you would for cloud spend:
Then decide what happens when the budget is hit:
Do not store “everything” as one blob.
Use three buckets with explicit rules:
If you are vague here, you will end up with the data swamp problem.
Summaries should support decisions, not preserve nuance for its own sake.
A good summary contains:
The question is not “can the agent retrieve information?”
It is:
Some agents should not be always-on.
Often the best answer is “event-driven”:
If you want a useful framing on cost trade-offs and context handling, this paper is a good place to start, even if you are not going to read every detail:
If you are running pilots or planning production rollout, do this in a single working session:
For most organisations, this is where the savings come from. Not from better prompts. From better boundaries.
Leaders often assume the best agent is the one that remembers everything. In practice, perfect recall tends to create:
A sustainable agent is one that remembers what matters, forgets what does not, and can explain the difference.