Part of our Claude Opus 5.5 series. Start with the complete Claude Opus 5.5 guide for the full benchmark table, pricing and availability.
On earlier Claude models you could switch thinking off for a fast answer. Claude Opus 5.5 removes that switch. Thinking is always on, and the effort parameter decides how much of it happens. Getting effort right is now the biggest single lever on your latency and your bill.
5
effort levels, low to max
medium
the new default
72% vs 56%
bugs caught: Opus 5.5 low vs Opus 5 high (Deloitte)
~10x
fewer tokens per chart than Opus 5 at its top effort
What the effort parameter does
Effort tells Claude how thorough to be. It sets how deeply the model thinks, and it also shapes the rest of its behavior: at lower effort it makes fewer, more consolidated tool calls, writes less preamble and gives shorter confirmations. Because thinking tokens bill as output, effort moves cost and latency more than any other setting.
response = client.messages.create(
model="claude-opus-5-5",
max_tokens=16000,
output_config={"effort": "medium"}, # low | medium | high | xhigh | max
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Review this pull request for bugs."}],
)Effort sits inside output_config, not at the top level of the request. No beta header is needed.
The five effort levels
| Level | Behavior | Good starting point for |
|---|---|---|
| low | Short thinking, fewest tool calls, fastest replies | Chat, classification, routing, sub-agents |
| medium | The default. Balanced depth and cost | Most coding and knowledge work |
| high | Deeper thinking on every turn | Complex multi-file changes, careful analysis |
| xhigh | Much longer turns than on Opus 5 | Hard agentic coding with a measured gain |
| max | Uncapped thinking | Work where correctness outweighs cost |
At low, how often Opus 5.5 skips thinking altogether depends on the prompt. Simple questions often get a near-instant answer, while complex ones still get some reasoning.
Why medium is the new default
Effort names aren’t a fixed amount of thinking. They are relative to each model. Opus 5.5 does more with each level than Opus 5 did, so Anthropic moved the default down a step. In its testing, Opus 5.5 at medium exceeded Opus 5 at high on coding and knowledge-work evaluations.
Customer results from the launch show how far down the scale the quality holds:
- Deloitte: Opus 5.5 at low caught 72% of known bugs. Opus 5 at high caught 56%, with more false alarms.
- Walleye Capital: solved its evaluation task at the lowest setting, and caught an off-by-one error in the task's own instructions.
- Rogo: beat Opus 5 at high effort using 60% fewer output tokens.
- Factory: matched Opus 5 at high effort with 20 to 25% fewer output tokens.
The biggest gap is visual work. Anthropic reports that Opus 5.5 at low effort read charts more accurately than Opus 5 at its highest setting, using about a tenth of the output tokens per chart.
Don't copy your Opus 5 setting across
At a given level, Opus 5.5 tends to think more per turn than Opus 5, especially at xhigh and max. If you kept xhigh from an Opus 5 integration, expect longer turns and bigger bills. Re-run your comparison instead.How to choose a level
The right level depends on the workload, so tune it per route rather than once for the whole app. A short sweep gives you the answer:
- Take 50 to 100 real requests from the route you are tuning.
- Run them at low, medium and high. Add xhigh only for hard agentic coding.
- Grade the outputs with the same checks you use in production: tests, schemas or a reviewer.
- Work out the cost per completed task at each level, not the cost per request.
- Pick the lowest level that holds your quality bar.
| Workload | Start at | Also test |
|---|---|---|
| Customer support replies | low | medium |
| Document extraction and classification | low | medium |
| Chart, dashboard and screenshot reading | low | medium |
| Code review | low | medium |
| Feature work across a repository | medium | high |
| Financial models and long reports | medium | high |
| Bugs that survived several attempts | high | xhigh |
If Opus 5.5 still fails at high or xhigh, the next step may be a different model rather than more effort. See Opus 5.5 vs Fable 5.1 for when to escalate.
Changing effort mid-conversation
Agent loops mix hard steps and routine ones. Changing the top-level effort between requests works, but it invalidates the prompt cache. The per-message form avoids that: an empty system message that carries only the new effort level, under the mid-conversation-output-config-2026-07-01 beta.
POST /v1/messages
anthropic-beta: mid-conversation-output-config-2026-07-01
{
"model": "claude-opus-5-5",
"max_tokens": 16000,
"output_config": {"effort": "high"},
"messages": [
{"role": "user", "content": "Plan the database migration."},
{"role": "assistant", "content": "Here's the plan: ..."},
{"role": "system", "content": [], "output_config": {"effort": "low"}},
{"role": "user", "content": "Now rename the config file."}
]
}The new level applies from the next user turn until another system message changes it. Lowering effort this way is reliable. Raising it works best in large jumps, such as low to xhigh.
Common mistakes
- Leaving effort unset. You get medium, which may be more or less than you want. Set it on every route.
- Prompting instead of lowering effort. “Be brief” or “don’t overthink” is less reliable than a lower level. Lower effort first, then prompt if needed.
- A
max_tokenstoo small for the thinking. Thinking counts toward the limit. A limit sized for Opus 5 with thinking off can cut replies short. Anthropic suggests 64K for long agentic coding turns. - Using xhigh or max by default. Reserve them for work where you measured a gain, and plan for longer turns with streaming and timeouts.
To see what effort means for your monthly bill, read the Opus 5.5 pricing guide. For the other API changes, see the Claude Opus 5.5 migration guide.
Frequently asked questions
What is the default effort level for Claude Opus 5.5?
Medium. Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models default to high, so a request that doesn't set effort now runs one level lower than it did before.
Is medium effort on Opus 5.5 worse than high effort on Opus 5?
No. In Anthropic's testing, Opus 5.5 at medium matched or exceeded Opus 5 at high on coding and knowledge-work evaluations. Effort names don't mean the same amount of thinking across models.
How do I make Claude Opus 5.5 respond faster?
Lower effort to low. Thinking can't be disabled on Opus 5.5, but at low effort it keeps thinking short. Lowering effort is more reliable than adding "think less" instructions to the prompt.
When should I use xhigh or max effort?
Only where you have measured a quality gain over high. At xhigh and max, Opus 5.5 thinks noticeably more per turn than Opus 5 did, so turns run longer and cost more. Max has no cap on thinking.
Does changing effort break the prompt cache?
Changing the top-level effort between requests invalidates the cache. A per-message effort change, sent as an empty system message under the mid-conversation-output-config-2026-07-01 beta, does not.
The Claude Opus 5.5 series
Six guides that cover the model from every angle a team evaluating it will ask about.
01
Claude Opus 5.5: Benchmarks, Pricing and What Actually Changed
02
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Fable 5.1: Is Fable Still Worth 2.5x the Price?
03
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Opus 5: Is the Upgrade Worth It?
04
Claude Opus 5.5 Pricing: API Costs in Dollars and Rupees
05
Migrating to Claude Opus 5.5: Four Breaking Changes to Fix First
06 · You are here
Effort levels explained
Sources
- Claude Platform Docs: Effort
- Claude Platform Docs: Prompting Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Platform Docs: What's new in Claude Opus 5.5
- Anthropic: Introducing Claude Opus 5.5
Benchmark and customer figures are Anthropic's launch-day numbers, not independent tests. Prices are Anthropic's first-party API list prices as of September 24, 2026.
Building on Claude?
Tech Geum builds and migrates AI features for businesses in India and the Gulf, from model selection to production.
