Entity Binding Failures in Tool-Augmented Agents

Tool-augmented language-model agents execute multi-step workflows over external systems, resolving an entity once and then acting on it across subsequent steps. Prior work shows that in single-step actions, agents select the correct tool but bind it to the wrong entity 24-26% of the time. We study what happens to entity bindings over time: do they stay correct, silently drift to a different entity, or, if wrong from the start, propagate and compound? We formalize binding drift (correct at step 1, wrong later) as distinct from error propagation (wrong at step 1, carried forward), and score them on disjoint workflow sets so the two cannot be conflated. In a controlled multi-step testbed (200 workflows, 580 entity-binding-scored steps, four enterprise domains, eight model backends spanning small to frontier), we find: (1) under controlled error injection, an entity lock (the intuitive "persist the first binding" fix) amplifies wrong actions from 907 to 2,746 (3.0x; bootstrap 95% CI [2.8, 3.3]), because it faithfully carries the seeded wrong entity into every later step; (2) the amplification reaches 8.5x on the most affected model (Claude Opus 4.5); (3) a practical LLM-based re-verifier (a single cheap second model call re-reading the original instruction) reduces wrong actions by 79% (0.21x; CI [0.18, 0.25]), closing the gap to within 1 percentage point of an oracle upper-bound (0.20x); and (4) in the natural (non-injected) setting, baseline agents drift on 18% of eligible workflows, with the per-step error rate rising across steps. Persistence and re-verification are not interchangeable: a defense that eliminates drift can worsen propagation, and a practical re-verifier nearly matches oracle recovery.

Tool calling is central to modern language model agents, but aggregate benchmark scores often hide where tool use fails. A model that never calls a needed tool and a model that calls the tool but ignores the result can look similar under final task accuracy. We introduce ToolFailBench, a diagnostic benchmark for measuring tool-use failures across 1,000 tasks in finance, medicine, law, cybersecurity, and real estate. Tool-required tasks return values the model wouldn't guess, forcing it to trust the tool while control tasks attach the same tools but should be answered directly. We label each trace with Tool-Skip, Result-Ignore, Output-Fabrication, and Unnecessary-Tool-Use, using a rule classifier and two LLM judges aggregated by majority vote. Across 19 headline models, the best reaches 86.33% Clean Tool-Use Rate, showing that faithful tool use is not saturated. More importantly, models with similar aggregate scores fail in different ways: most stay disciplined on no-tool controls, while Llama-3.1 models show an Always-Call pattern, and at the same parameter scale Llama-3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-72B differ by 89 percentage points on control-task accuracy. Tool-use evaluation should measure not only whether agents call tools, but whether they use tool outputs correctly and avoid tools when none is needed.

Tool-using agents increasingly rely on external tools to complete multi-step tasks, but tool returns can fail in different ways and require different recovery actions. Existing robustness studies often use uncertainty-based measures to detect when an agent becomes unreliable. These measures can reveal that something has gone wrong, but they do not directly identify the type of tool failure or the appropriate response. We address this limitation by analyzing tool failures at the moment a return enters the agent context. Our approach combines two complementary signals. The first compares the likelihood of the returned content under the tool schema and under the full trajectory prefix. The second measures the agent's probability distribution over its legal next actions. We evaluate the approach by injecting incomplete and inconsistent returns into a retail customer-service benchmark. The results show that likelihood-based signals clearly capture incomplete returns and some direct inconsistencies, while action-based signals reveal how strongly a failure changes the next decision. Some failures that are weak under likelihood signals can still redirect the agent toward state-changing actions. These findings show that tool failures can be recognized at the return boundary, but reliable diagnosis requires combining multiple signals.