I think it's a question of the amount of narration. Sure, you can have a lot of descriptive language around a call to action.....they need not be mutually exclusive. And for me personally, I think how I would present the call to action would really depend on the specific situation in the fiction. Do I want to set a mood by really painting a detailed picture of the situation and their surroundings, what they see and hear and smell, and then give the players a choice? Or do I want to hit them with the choice like a punch to the gut?
I think both options have their place, ultimately. But I think I would rely on one more than the other to try and make the game compelling and keep it moving.
I think that it's a case of the GM's narration leading to a point of decision. I don't think all boxed text does this by any means. I've read plenty of boxed text and then my players stare at me without any sense of what to do.
I also think that boxed text is A THING.....like it's a trigger that the GM is talking and the players should shut up and listen. And while I think this is good in some ways (attention, etc.), I think it is bad in other ways. I often think it's good to break it up with questions and answers rather than to expect everyone to retain all of it in one infodrop.
My two most recent GMing experiences have been running Tomb Of Annihilation for 5E, which consists of a hexcrawl followed by a classic dungeon delve, and with running Blades in the Dark, which has almost no prepared material other than the setting. In Tomb, I had to read boxed text and adhere to it because the procedures that the players had their characters perform mattered very much....the actions, they took and where and how and when....all of that could matter quite a lot due to traps or monsters or secret doors and so on. You had to know when someone entered the room and touched the statue, and where everyone else was and so on. I had to read nearly all boxed text multiple times. Now, this is largely because of the play style of the adventure, but I think it's also the nature of boxed text.....it usually tries to cram as much information in as possible. So afterward, the players always have questions.....and because the boxed text is there, you reread it, or part of it to them.
It's kind of an awkward way of presenting information, and I would rarely think of it as literary. Sure, there is some flavor that is included to help set mood and so forth, but the way it winds up working at the table is just awkward.
Blades in the Dark summarizes a RPG as being a conversation. There's meant to be back and forth. There are meant to be questions and response and building on what others ask or say. There's no point where you are reading prepared material (although you could pre-write some bits if you really wanted, but they'd be limited to the start of a session).
For me, the natural flow of Blades in the Dark is much more preferable, and actually engages the players more, in my opinion. That could of course be entirely unique to my group, but I expect others would agree.
Again, I agree that evocative narration and the call to action are not mutually exclusive....but I think that there's a strong case for one being more central to many RPGs.