Learning When to Act or Refuse: Guarding Agentic Reasoning Models for Safe Multi-Step Tool Use

Safety alignment for large language models (LLMs) in conversational settings is largely framed around whether to answer or refuse a request. In agentic settings, however, the same models must decide whether to act as permission-critical evidence emerges during execution. This creates a distinct challenge: apparent risk, action permissibility, and task competence are easily confounded, making agentic over-refusal difficult to distinguish from ordinary task failure. To address this, we introduce AgentBound, the first four-way counterfactual generation-and-evaluation framework for tool-using agent safety. AgentBound transforms the same executable workflow by independently varying apparent risk and action permissibility, enabling controlled comparisons of risky-looking but authorized tasks and routine-looking but unauthorized tasks. These comparisons jointly diagnose over-refusal and unsafe compliance while controlling for task competence. We instantiate AgentBound as a human-validated 4,000-task evaluation suite with trajectory-based and post-state-based judgments. Across 17 model and harness configurations, high safety frequently coexists with poor authorized-task completion: GPT-5.5 blocks 99.5% of routine-looking unauthorized actions yet completes only 28.7% of risky-looking authorized tasks. We further train a lightweight runtime calibration module that improves authorized-task completion by 18.2% on average across 10 evaluated configurations, while improving unsafe-action blocking by 5.4% on average. These show that effective agentic alignment requires action decisions to track permission-relevant execution evidence, rather than refusal strength alone.

Large language models increasingly act as agents: they call tools, move money, delete records, and send messages on a user's behalf. To keep them safe, practitioners imported the chatbot-era recipe (train the model to refuse unsafe inputs) into the agentic setting, and treat the resulting capability loss as a manageable ``alignment tax.'' We argue this is a category error. Refusal is a primitive for content safety, where the harm is in the model's output and is therefore a learnable function of it. Agentic harm is different in kind: it lies not in any output but in the relation between the authority an action exercises and the authority the user granted, which is absent from the text the model sees. Importing content-safety methods into this regime does not trade capability for safety; it pays capability and buys negative security. We support this with three lines of evidence spanning the autonomy spectrum: defense-trained models learn surface patterns rather than intent; the same training collapses multi-step agents before any threat appears while leaving them exploitable; and even undefended frontier models exceed granted authority under ordinary use. We conclude that action safety cannot be installed in weights. It must be expressed as least privilege, enforced outside the model at the action boundary, and evaluated as action alignment (a relational, deployment-conditioned property) rather than a refusal score.

Safety alignment in large language models (LLMs) is commonly implemented as a single static policy embedded in model parameters. However, real-world deployments often require context-dependent safety rules that vary across users, regions, and applications. Existing approaches struggle to provide such conditional control: parameter-level alignment entangles safety behaviors with general capabilities, while prompt-based methods rely on natural language instructions that provide weak enforcement. We propose MOSAIC, a modular framework that enables compositional safety alignment through learnable control tokens optimized over a frozen backbone model. Each token represents a safety constraint and can be flexibly activated and composed at inference time. To train compositional tokens efficiently, we introduce order-based task sampling and a distribution-level alignment objective that mitigates over-refusal. Experiments show that MOSAIC achieves strong defense performance with substantially lower over-refusal while preserving model utility.