Vision-language models (VLMs) often answer visual questions using learned language and category priors rather than grounding their predictions in the image itself. Counterfactual images provide a natural diagnostic setting for this failure mode: when visible evidence contradicts what is usually true, a grounded model should answer from the pixels, while a prior-following model will produce a canonical but visually incorrect response. However, existing counterfactual benchmarks mainly ask whether such prior-following behavior exists. In this paper, we ask a further question motivated by the rise of tool-augmented and agentic vision systems: can additional visual evidence views help VLMs reason against their priors? We introduce PriVE-Bench, a Prior-vs-Visual Evidence Benchmark that uses paired original and counterfactual images to distinguish visually grounded answers from prior-consistent errors. We further introduce PriVE-Tools, a controlled agentic-vision-inspired extension that evaluates whether tool-derived visual evidence—including bounding boxes, crops, zoom panels, and contours—improves grounding under the same counterfactual conflicts. Across open- and closed-source VLMs, we compare raw, paired-image, and tool-conditioned inputs using accuracy, prior-following error rate, and other-response rate. Our results show that visual evidence tools can help in some settings, especially when models can use localized evidence effectively, but they are not a universal remedy: several models continue to follow language and category priors even when relevant visual evidence is explicitly provided. The benchmark and codebase can be accessed at https://github.com/JingyuSunUOE/counterfactual-vlm-benchmark

Reasoning Vision-Language Models (VLMs) achieve strong performance on complex multimodal tasks, but reliable real-world application requires handling visual inputs that are messier than clean, curated benchmarks. Existing works mainly evaluate such reliability of VLMs through input corruptions, such as noise, blur and weather effects, which make visual evidence harder to perceive. This leaves a critical reliability failure mode underexplored: a model may perceive the evidence correctly, yet reason from plausible but irrelevant and distracting evidence and propagate this mistake to its final answer. To address this gap, we introduce **Distract-Bench**, a benchmark for evaluating VLM robustness to **semantic visual distractions**, defined as meaningful but task-irrelevant visual cues added to inputs while preserving the ground-truth answer. We comprehensively evaluate eight leading open-source and two closed-source VLMs across conventional vision corruptions and Distract-Bench. Our results show that Distract-Bench exposes a robustness failure distinct from vision corruptions: reasoning VLMs largely track their non-reasoning base models under perceptual degradation, but show consistently lower robustness to semantic distractions. Further analysis shows that these distractions often enter the reasoning process of VLMs, are treated as evidence, and lead to incorrect answers. Together, these findings reframe robustness evaluation for reasoning VLMs, shifting the focus from degraded perception to distractions for reliable real-world visual reasoning. Our data and code are available at _https://github.com/Yizheng-Sun/Distract-Bench_.