LiteLLM / LiteLLM

LiteLLM Chat Completions to Responses API Bridge tool_choice 400 Error

Fix LiteLLM 400 error when using tool_choice named function format with GPT-5.4/5.5 models Includes evidence for LiteLLM troubleshooting demand.

Source-backed Last updated May 11, 2026 1 source Needs local verification

Category: LiteLLM
Error signature: 400 Bad Request - tool_choice named function format
Quick fix: Compare the failing environment with a known working setup, then change one configuration value at a time.
Updated: May 11, 2026
Verification status: Source-backed
Evidence: 1 public source URL

Before you change production

This page includes public source URLs in the imported troubleshooting record. Compare those references with your version and environment before applying changes.

Reproduce the smallest failing action and save non-secret logs before changing configuration.
Check versions for LiteLLM, related SDKs, package managers, CI runners, and hosting providers.
Change one setting or dependency at a time, then rerun the same failing command or request.
Avoid destructive commands, credential rotation, billing changes, or security relaxations without a rollback plan.

What this error means

400 Bad Request - tool_choice named function format is a LiteLLM failure pattern reported for developers trying to fix litellm 400 error when using tool_choice named function format with gpt-5.4/5.5 models. Based on the imported evidence, treat this as a tool-specific troubleshooting page rather than a generic API error.

Why this happens

GitHub issue #27611 in BerriAI/litellm. Affects all GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.5 models through LiteLLM's Chat Completions → Responses API bridge.

Common causes

Calling GPT-5.4 or GPT-5.5 through LiteLLM's Chat Completions endpoint with named tool_choice (type: function, function: {name: ...}) causes a 400 error because LiteLLM's bridge to the Responses API passes the parameter incorrectly.
GitHub issue #27611 in BerriAI/litellm. Affects all GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.5 models through LiteLLM's Chat Completions → Responses API bridge.

Quick fixes

Confirm the exact error signature matches 400 Bad Request - tool_choice named function format.
Check the LiteLLM account, local tool state, and provider configuration involved in the failing workflow.
Compare the failing environment with a known working setup, then change one configuration value at a time.

Platform/tool-specific checks

Verify the command, editor, extension, or API client that produced the error.
Compare local settings with CI, deployment, or editor-level settings when the error appears in only one environment.
Avoid deleting credentials, local model data, or project settings until the failing scope is clear.

Step-by-step troubleshooting

Capture the exact error message and the command, editor action, or request that triggered it.
Check whether the failure is account/auth, quota/rate, model/provider, local runtime, or deployment configuration.
Review the source evidence below and compare it with your environment.
Apply one change at a time and rerun the smallest failing action.
Keep the working fix documented for the team or deployment environment.

How to prevent it

Keep provider/tool configuration documented.
Record non-secret diagnostics such as tool version, provider name, model name, and command path.
Add a lightweight check before CI or production workflows depend on the tool.

Diagnostic flow for this page

Match 400 Bad Request - tool_choice named function format exactly before applying the quick fix.
Compare the failing environment with LiteLLM versions, account scope, provider settings, and deployment context.
Check the listed common causes in order, starting with the cause that best matches your logs.
Use the evidence status below to decide whether to confirm against public sources or official documentation.
Apply one reversible change, rerun the smallest failing action, and keep rollback notes.

FAQ

What does 400 Bad Request - tool_choice named function format mean in LiteLLM?

400 Bad Request - tool_choice named function format indicates the workflow described by "LiteLLM Chat Completions to Responses API Bridge tool_choice 400 Error" failed in a LiteLLM context. Start by confirming the exact signature and the component that emitted it.

What should I check first for 400 Bad Request - tool_choice named function format?

Check whether this cause matches your environment: Calling GPT-5.4 or GPT-5.5 through LiteLLM's Chat Completions endpoint with named tool_choice (type: function, function: {name: ...}) causes a 400 error because LiteLLM's bridge to the Responses API passes the parameter incorrectly.

Is the 400 Bad Request - tool_choice named function format guidance source-backed?

The "LiteLLM Chat Completions to Responses API Bridge tool_choice 400 Error" page is labeled source-backed. It has 1 public source URL from github.com, so use that evidence status when deciding how much additional verification you need.

When should I avoid the quick fix for 400 Bad Request - tool_choice named function format?

For "LiteLLM Chat Completions to Responses API Bridge tool_choice 400 Error", avoid applying "Compare the failing environment with a known working setup, then change one configuration value at a time." when the error text differs, the affected version or provider is different, or the change would touch credentials, billing, DNS, production deploy settings, or irreversible data.

What should I collect before debugging 400 Bad Request - tool_choice named function format?

For "LiteLLM Chat Completions to Responses API Bridge tool_choice 400 Error", collect the failing LiteLLM command or request, non-secret configuration, versions, timestamps, request IDs when available, and the smallest reproduction that still triggers the signature.