Otherwise said, all those decisions are done by committee. None of them can be done by any employee autonomously and no employee gets to have responsibility. You never do those things nebulous, notion of "team" does. But team is not you, it is group of people. All the situations you described are negotiation between many parties situations.
Also, micromanagement or decisions monopolization can be done by anyone on any level. Many developers love to do so - and exactly these do love agile, because that gives them cover to railroad everyone else. Agile is really big on making PM or management enemies. It does work to some extend, common enemy does bring people together.
> Also the team itself should be very autonomous inside the organization as much as your context allows.
And no single team member has no area of responsibility or autonomy. And that is the thing - if you like to dominate and influence other people, agile gives you plenty of playground. If you like to throw your weight in the meetings, great. But if you dont want to do that constantly all the time, you are expected to be passive follower with no space for any autonomy, mastery nor accountability.
> As for the small tasks, I see them as a way exactly to promote a sense of achievement, the team is responsible for this big chunk of work and you should be able to see very clearly how things are moving forward. Sure, if you lose connection with the bigger picture because you or your team does not have enough autonomy, then something is wrong and you need to fix it, otherwise you lose this effect.
Note how it is still the "team". You don't see nor mention any individual. No individual at that team achieved anything personally. Individuals almost don't exist. They did not made single tiny decisions that would not been discussed to death with five other people. For a methodic that is supposed to favor individuals, there is literally zero concern for individual or human psychology. The only interest is in group.