Whether you think it's good style or not to use embiggen if someone came across a text with the word it is useful to have it's meaning readily available.
Why is this a paradox? Why is prescriptivity a result of the actions of "many users"?
Descriptivists would have to describe themselves as prescriptive, if many users think they are being prescriptive. -- Is that better?
The irony is: Many users think the editors are descriptive, because that's what the editors prescribe.
I really don't see a way out of this. Also see the comment I left on the sibling.
Each dictionary has their own standards for what constitutes enough usage to be considered a word. Otherwise we’d have infinite dictionaries.
Dictionaries look at what many people say, and log those as words eventually. They’re decidedly Descriptivist.
Language is not inherently descriptive or prescriptive, it is a false dichotomy, because language is acquired by copying, but it is is modified to suit needs, so it is used prescriptive. If language was purely descriptive, where did it first copy from? In a sense, I assume that language faculty is inherently prescribed in a natural way. And in another sense, the words show de-scription is copying (this doesn't work well in english, but in french e.g. it would be quite literall "ecrire de ..."), and pre-scription is what was written before it was copied. It's two sides of the same medal.
If they describe, somebody else will interpret that as prescription, whether that was intended or not.
A funny thought: dictionaries are to words as the Unicode standard is to characters.