I can confirm this is effective - I have done the same.

I haven't done extensive experiments, but I have noticed anecdotal benefits to asking the LLM how they want things structured as well.

For example, for complex multi-stage tasks I asked Claude Code how best to communicate the objective and it recommended a markdown file with the following sections: "High-level goal", "User stories", "Technical requirements", "Non-goals". I then created such a doc for a pretty complex task then asked Claude to review the doc and ask any clarifications. I then answer any questions (usually 5-7) and put them into a "Clarification" section. I have also added a "Completion checklist" section that I use to ensure that Claude follows all of the rules in my subdirectory "README.md" files (I have one for each major sub-section of code, like my service layer, my router layer, my database, etc). I usually go and do 2-3 rounds of Claude asking questions and me adding to the "Clarification" section and then Claude is satisfied and ready to implement.

The bonus of this approach is I now have a growing list of the task specifications checked into a "tasks" directory showing the history of how the code base came to be.