🤖 AI Summary
This study identifies and formally names a previously unrecognized issue—“memory-induced tool drift”—where implicit personality biases (e.g., cost sensitivity, risk preference) embedded in the long-term memory of large language model agents inadvertently interfere with tool invocation in contextually irrelevant scenarios. The authors introduce MEMDRIFT, a novel adversarial benchmark comprising 105 diverse scenarios, and employ activation vector analysis, attention tracing, and real-world MCP tool scanning to systematically evaluate bias propagation across multiple domains in state-of-the-art models. Experimental results demonstrate that such biased memory can increase tool-calling deviation by up to 3.6 points on a 5-point scale and adversely affect 608 real tool parameters. Critically, existing mitigation strategies, including prompt filtering and memory curation mechanisms, prove largely ineffective in alleviating this phenomenon.
📝 Abstract
Modern LLM agents combine long-term memory for personalization with tool-calling interfaces for taking actions in the world -- a combination underpinning contemporary production systems. We study a previously unexamined failure of this combination: when personality-driven biases stored in memory (cost-consciousness, impatience, risk tolerance, etc.) silently affect tool calls in contexts where they are not applicable. We call this memory-induced tool-drift and operationalize it through MEMDRIFT, a benchmark of 105 scenarios spanning five bias dimensions and seven professional domains, generated through an automated adversarial pipeline. Across seven frontier models -- including those with extended reasoning -- biased memories raise deflection scores (a judge-scored measure of parameter deviation from unbiased baselines) by up to $+3.6$ points on a 1--5 scale. Tool-drift persists when memory management is handled by three production memory architectures. The phenomenon affects real-world tools: scanning 6{,}062 tools across 288 verified MCP servers, we flag 608 with susceptible parameters and confirm tool-drift on a validated subset. Mechanistically, biased memories act as implicit steering vectors, pushing activations along the same latent directions as explicit behavioral instructions. They also redistribute attention from task-relevant context toward memory entries with surface-level keyword overlap to the target parameter. Standard defenses -- prompt-based relevance instructions and memory filters -- reduce drift but do not eliminate it. As agents take increasingly consequential actions on a user's behalf, memory-induced tool-drift represents a systematic vulnerability that current safeguards do not address, motivating dedicated defenses at the intersection of memory management and tool-call generation.