mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

MLLMs Fail to Refuse when Using Tools Agentically

arXiv 2610.03938 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

also in 2 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently pushed the frontier of visual reasoning by calling tools such as zooming and tagging. Despite the recent strong success of agentic MLLMs, this work uncovers a critical safety failure in the tool-use paradigm: agentic tool-using MLLMs become less capable of refusing harmful requests. Our experiments confirm that, across three popular safety benchmarks, all the top open- and closed-weight MLLMs we test exhibit significantly lower safety in tool-using settings than in non-tool settings, with a relative refusal failure rate increase of up to 68.7%. Based on analysis of 100,000+ responses, including extended experiments, we also propose two possible reasons for this safety degradation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Multimodal Situational Safety
  2. 2026AgentBoundary: Counterfactual Evaluation of Safety in Tool-Using LLM Agents
  3. 2026Tool Specifications Matter: Uncovering and Mitigating Safety Risks in AI Agents
  4. 2025When Refusals Fail: Unstable Safety Mechanisms in Long-Context LLM Agents
  5. 2026When Helpers Become Hazards: A Benchmark for Analyzing Multimodal LLM-Powered Safety in Daily Life
  6. 2026MME-Safety: A Fine-grained Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of MLLMs
  7. 2025RiOSWorld: Benchmarking the Risk of Multimodal Computer-Use Agents
  8. 2026Mind the GAP: Text Safety Does Not Transfer to Tool-Call Safety in LLM Agents