Yeah sometimes we can miss the forest for the trees. Definitely the situation here. There has to be a point where the rule ends and common sense takes over. Otherwise, core rulebooks would be 2-3 times bigger than they already are because the designers has to explain every use of words like "hidden" or "use". And in this (an many other) example, the designer's explanations are still being questioned
This is another reason why GM Fiat exists, otherwise rules debates would constantly destroy gaming sessions. We can go round & round about it here online, and while the discussion can be very useful, it can also get buried by pedantry.
Of course everything can be covered by DM fiat, and of course common sense should take a role.
At the same time, there has to be a shared understanding of what is expected, especially since the emphasis in the rules is not supported by most people's understanding of what they say. I have no objections to coming up with alternatives if that's what the table wants, but it's worth seeing what they are alternative to.
My experience as a DM and player is that illusions are under-used. I think the imbalance in how many play (based on anecdotal evidence, admittedly) is part of the reason why.
