Comment by hug

Often it is used in society and media in the exact way as the definition I provided. For a good recent example, the following:

"I think that we learned through the thousands of pages that I've released to the public that Jack Smith was a tool of the Biden administration to put Trump in prison." - Chuck Grassley

Grassley isn't calling out Jack Smith as per urban dictionary usage, here, right? If we were breaking down what was meant here one could, if they were using slightly more interesting language than Grassley, say that Joe Biden is a man of intrigue and that Jack Smith was an agent being used to accomplish his political purposes. Unsurprisingly, Grassley is on the other side of the political fence and was using the word tool here reproachfully.

Fundamentally the definition I linked is the definition under which people are suggesting that other people can simultaneously retain agency, be considered a tool of another, and not be insulted by that circumstance.

But yes: Webster's 1913. Modern dictionaries elide nuance in communication in favour of terse & technical language, and while there are additional uses of the word in modern times, that doesn't erase the history of the word - especially in the usages that still exist with an uninterrupted lineage to the modern day.

Today's Merriam-Webster has an inelegant matching definition for tool, "one who is used or manipulated by another", and while that certainly matches Grassley's usage, and to say "Jack Smith was used by Joe Biden to try to imprison Trump" is certainly correct, there is something missing from this definition that the 1913 encapsulates.