Practice advice for use of %type in declaring a subprogram's formal arguments

I'm thinking about "language plpgsql" subprograms—but I expect that my question can be generalized to cover "language sql" too.

The payload for "create [or replace]" for a "language plpgsql" subprogram specifies various metadata elements like its qualified name, list of formal arguments and their modes and datatypes, "security invoker/definer" and so on together with the enquoted actual PL/pgSQL source text.

When the DDL succeeds, the PL/pgSQL source text is recorded verbatim in "pg_proc". But the meaning of everything else is parsed out and represented as individual fields in "pg_proc" and other tables like "pg_namespace". This is reflected by the canonical form that "\sf" uses, for example:

create table s.t(k integer primary key, v integer);

create procedure s.p(k_in in t.k%type, v_in t.v%type)
language plpgsql
as $body$
begin
/* ... */
end;
$body$

\sf s.p

This is the output:

CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE s.p(k_in integer, v_in integer)
LANGUAGE plpgsql
AS $procedure$
begin
/* ... */
end;
$procedure$

This shows that my use of "%type"was consumed at "create" time and then recorded in the catalog as what it translated to. The consequence is that if the table is dropped and re-created thus:

drop table s.t;
create table s.t(k integer primary key, v text);

the metadata is not changed in sympathy and so "\sf" shows the same as before. This means that I have to find my original DDL script and re-run it—albeit without making any changes to its text.

In other words, the benefit of using "%type" for the declaration of a formal argument is less than using it for the declaration of a local variable.

Do you (all) think that, notwithstanding this, it's a good plan to use "%type" for the declaration of a formal argument just for the reason that it documents your intention explicitly?