There's definitely a semantic collision happening here, then, because in this context, I interpret "agent" in the sense of a principal-agent relationship, i.e. someone (or something) acting on your behalf, rather than "agent" in the philosophical sense of moral agency. AI tools are agents in a functional, but not in a moral, sense.

And even when a functional agent is a human being who is also a moral agent in their own right, the law has always held the principal liable for acts taken on their behalf by an agent who has been equipped by the principal to take that action. This goes even more for "agents" that are still just software running on a computer, and not moral agents in their own right.