Literature syntheses would benefit from "why we did this" as well as "this is what we did"

As a rather bad synthetic chemist, I think that there should be more discussions allowed in supporting information synthetic preps. Yes, present the prep in a succinct fashion, but there should also be a chance for the chemist to explain their choices, say what didn't work to get to a target molecule, any advice for further chemists, etc. Any time you talk to a chemist behind synthetic work for a paper, they will always tell you much more information than what is written on the page. Why do we exclude all this crucial information, (maybe methodology is better, med chem is horrendous)?

Example: I'm trying to make benzyl bromide analogues. In the preparation, no mention anywhere of stability, how best to store them, challenges with purification, etc. Is this information not as important as simply "put in reagents, workup, purify". When I contacted the chemist involved with the prep, he had a lot of advice. As a science are we really so reliant on word of mouth, tricks of the trade, etc?