Limited controlled evidence exists on how training data, adaptation method, and model scale jointly affect tool-calling performance in language-model agents. We evaluate supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with LoRA, reinforcement learning (RL) via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and SFT followed by GRPO across six Qwen3 models from 0.6B to 32B parameters, covering both in-distribution performance and cross-dataset transfer. SFT with LoRA is the strongest in-distribution method throughout the 0.6B–32B range and best in 15 out of 18 experimental settings. On cross-dataset transfer, the methods are closer: GRPO wins 29 out of 54 settings where training and test datasets differ, but its margin over SFT averages under one point, and SFT→GRPO is rarely strongest at either comparison. Dataset mixing gives consistently strong transfer while staying close to specialized in-distribution training, regardless of method. Additional analysis further confirms that LoRA outperforms full-parameter fine-tuning, demonstrating that LoRA better preserves pretrained agentic behavior.

Agent models are frequently evaluated one decision at a time, where the model predicts the next action based on the gold interaction history, which is scored against a reference. We investigate whether improvement under this protocol is predictive of improved autonomous workflow execution. We study pre-SFT and supervised fine-tuned (SFT) Qwen3 models at 4B and 14B parameters and Gemma 3 models at 4B and 12B parameters on multi-turn customer-support workflows. We find that SFT consistently improves text-turn success, and that overall next-turn success increases for every model under gold-history evaluation. However, these improvements do not transfer to autonomous workflow execution. Tool-specific gains also vary across metrics and models. None of the four SFT models succeeds under holistic workflow evaluation, with strict trajectory completion reaching at most 10.4% workflow success. Our results show that next-turn evaluation is not a reliable proxy for workflow success, motivating separate reporting of text quality, local action correctness, tool execution, and end-to-end task completion.