A good illustration of exactly what issue the Webel "Trust the Type" i/o naming and display pattern recipe addresses and why it is more effective for many modelling situation is provided by this SysMLv2 GitHub sample serving here as a counter-example (or AntiPattern):

03-Function-based Behavior: 3a-Function-based Behavior-1.sysml [WITH MODELLING DISCUSSION]

To find out what the Webel "Trust the Type" i/o recipe is (as applied to parameters, actions, and flows) and how it can MASSIVELY improve your modelling and readability of your diagrams attend the Webel Course!

Course: Model-Based Systems Engineering with OMG Systems Modeling Language® (v2) and Cameo Systems Modeler (CATIA Magic™) for SysMLv2

BIG NEWS: The Webel SysMLv2/MBSE course is now available as a full Online Self-Study Course with built-in self-test Quiz system and worked exercises!

Visit also: SysMLv2: Webel: Redefining a parameter or port (or a directed feature of such) in a binding connector's context provides a "clean" binding target (as opposed to binding to an inherited feature). BUT it's not always necessary (confirmed by SysMLv2 samples)

Visit also: Webel Best Practice: SysMLv2: OPTION: Use Webel convention role-based parameter names with actions for indicating transformations together with Webel display conventions (not any verbose parameter names). To find out how attend the Webel SysMLv2 course!

Visit also: Webel Best Practice: SysMLv2: VERY STRONG RECOMMENDATION: Prefer Webel "Trust the Type" i/o port naming and Webel display conventions over verbose port usage names and verbose directed feature names. To find out how attend the Webel SysMLv2 course!

Visit also: Webel's Best Practice policy notes for MBSE with SysMLv2 and the Cameo (CATIA Magic) tools

Relates to

14. Action Definitions: Action Definition Example.sysml

14. Action Definitions: Action Succession Example-1.sysml

14. Action Definitions: Action Succession Example-2.sysml

14. Action Definitions: Action Shorthand Example.sysml

15. Actions: Action Decomposition.sysml