I think some descriptors like nimble is closely tied to dexterity. I want ability scores (and proficiencies) to matter in the game. If someone describes their character as looking like a WWE pro wrestler that looks like Dwayne Johnson and they have an 8 strength it would cause cognitive dissonance.
Otherwise I did misunderstand a bit but for the most part I was agreeing with you. I don't think ability scores tell me much about who the character is. For me I describe my character and I only think ability scores after the fact.
I do have a bit of a pet peeve when things like ability scores are called "Sacred cows kept around for the grognards." I mean, having numbers from 3-20 or above may look like a sacred cow at first glance and we could just switch over to using the bonuses instead so ability scores go from -4 to +5. But a lot of people have issues with negative numbers so it's a bit odd conceptually. A more logical system would be ability scores go from 1 to 10 but that has a lot of other side effects with how we calculate everything else. It could be done of course but it would require a big change to the game's math for minimal gain.
We certainly still have sacred cows mooing in the background but a lot of them have been slaughtered over the years or relegated into the background like alignment. In my opinion ability scores are pretty fundamental to the game and not easily replaced. There are still oddities in D&D that could easily addressed - like studded leather that never existed - but others like strict alignment restrictions or druids not wearing metal armor have gone away.
