Often it forces a clarity that only comes from writing ideas down in a way that's necessary to explain your results to your peers.
The process itself sucks, but the outcomes are often quite satisfying and rewarding.
Nowadays the intro/motivation/problem statement / related work (citation tax) / formulation/<actual results> / simulations / conclusions / futurework format is just soul crushing.
Today there is much more research being done and published, and fully reading a paper is a special case. Papers are now more structured, and the primary use case is quickly skimming over the paper to determine if it merits more thorough reading. (Usually it doesn't.)
But I actually do think it's good to force people to think about the "why" question a lot.
And anyway, aren't reviewers themselves supposed to be able to connect dots?
When I was an active reviewer I tried not to ever say "Who cares" in so many words and just focus on the technical contributions. There's enough overinflation/fraud in papers that we dont need to be encouraging it by asking them to over-over inflate a possible reason for the work that is beyond the obvious ones that reviewers in the same field would appreciate.
All IMHO. There's no "right", just "preferred".