Large language models are increasingly deployed as specialized agents that plan, call tools, and take actions over extended horizons. Yet many existing evaluations assume a "clean interface" where dynamics are specified and stable, tools and sensors are reliable, and success is captured by a single explicit objective-often overestimating real-world readiness. In practice, agents face underspecified rules, unreliable signals, shifting environments, and implicit, multi-stakeholder goals. The challenge is therefore not just solving tasks, but adapting while solving: deciding what to trust, what is wanted, when to verify, and when to fall back or escalate. We stress-test deployment-relevant robustness under four operational circumstances: partial observability, dynamic environments, noisy signals, and dynamic agent state. We benchmark agentic LLMs in a grid-based game with a simple goal but long-horizon execution. Episodes violate clean-interface assumptions yet remain solvable, forcing agents to infer rules, pay for information, adapt to environmental and internal shifts, and act cautiously under noise. Across five state-of-the-art LLM agents, we find large gaps between nominal task-solving and deployment-like robustness. Performance generally degrades as grid size and horizon increase, but rankings are unstable: weaker models can beat stronger ones when strategy matches the uncertainty regime. Despite no explicit instruction, agents trade off completion, efficiency, and penalty avoidance, suggesting partial objective inference. Ablations and feature analyses reveal model-specific sensitivities and failure drivers, motivating work on verification, safe action selection, and objective inference under partial observability, noise, and non-stationarity.