Multi-agent systems (MAS) have substantially advanced autonomous software engineering (SWE), but their growing inference energy demands raise sustainability concerns. In this paper, we demonstrate that this cost is concentrated in an overlooked source: redundant output tokens generated across agents. Two empirical findings ground this claim. First, our per-token energy attribution for MAS reveals a sharp asymmetry: an output token consumes 30 to 1,000 times more energy than an input or cached token. Second, MAS inflate per-episode output because agents repeatedly re-explore overlapping repository regions. To address this inefficiency, we propose Librarian, a persistent search sub-agent that tracks repository-search history and suppresses redundant exploration actions across agents. By returning short references to file regions instead of full file excerpts, Librarian further reduces output-token volume. On SWE-Bench Verified and SWE-Bench-Live, Librarian reduces per-episode GPU energy consumption of existing multi-agent SWE systems by 11 to 30% while preserving task performance. Our code is available at https://github.com/ml-postech/Librarian.

LLM-generated drafts often contain subtle factual or logical errors, yet prior work shows that models struggle to reliably integrate multi-turn feedback aimed at fixing them. We propose *in-place feedback*, an interaction paradigm in which the user directly edits the model’s previous response and the model continues generation from the edited context. In-place feedback consistently outperforms standard multi-turn feedback across five reasoning-intensive benchmarks while requiring fewer tokens, and our fine-grained analysis shows that it applies corrections more reliably and propagates them to subsequent reasoning. A user study with domain experts refining LLM-generated summaries corroborates these findings: participants report higher final-output satisfaction and substantially lower fatigue with in-place feedback, and a mixed strategy combining in-place and multi-turn feedback improves every dimension we measure. These results suggest that editing errors in place is a more reliable way to incorporate expert corrections than multi-turn feedback, while combining the two acts complementarily to form a more effective collaboration than either mechanism alone.