The SysML2.0 specification body example, Annex sample, and SysMLv2 GitHub examples are inconsistent in this regard.
Some examples such as the following from the SysMLv2 GitHub redefine ports to provide "clean" binding targets for directed item features:
Some examples such as the following also from the SysMLv2 GitHub DO NOT redefine parameter to provide "clean" binding targets:
The following from the SysMLv2 GitHub shows another example where redefinition of ports to provide "clean" targets is NOT performed (a flow is made between inherited ports):
Webel suggests that it really would help to clarify this in the specification (and perhaps with some comparative SysMLv2 PILOT samples) because of some of the somewhat convoluted statements in the spec about constraints on redefined parameters (especially).
Obviously, if you wish to provide specific feature values for in parameters using parameter "argument" syntax you need to provide redefinitions, but then it's not clear that one needs to redundantly then also redefine an out parameters as done in some samples.
In alignment with the Webel "Trust the Type" i/o recipe, if you do use the redefinition approach (or if you are providing feature values), the Type of any redefined port, parameter, or directed feature SHOULD be included (and even if that's also tedious and a bit WET) so that the concise and legible Webel "Trust the Type" display modes work.