They can, but whether they have is something to be determined by observation, not simply assertion.

It's unfortunately commonplace for people using words inconsistently with established usage, or coming up with novel usages that create ambiguity with respect to existing terms, to use "language evolves" as a blanket excuse.

But saying "language evolves" merely describes the process by which the current state of the language emerged, and doesn't actually substantiate any specific claim about what that current state actually is.

The point here is that this novel usage of the term "agent" is in conflict with what actually is the current standard meaning of the term, and actually does inhibit communication with people who aren't immersed in tech jargon.

I've encountered this myself when discussing AI tooling with the team managing a customer service call center, where "agent" is a pervasive term that already refers to human staff.