Yes, it's the usual advice of how artists/authors/scientists make something: 1) Make the thing, 2) Try removing each part, 3) If the work fails without that part, put it back.

For example, adverbs are good when readers might have the wrong image without them. E.g., "Alice [quickly] walked." Most of the time, writing is better without words like "very" or "quite."

When it comes to technical writing the only thing I can really discuss is documentation, and the key thing I'm personally looking for there is structure.

It could be about basically anything, just please, pretty please, for the love of god, make it structured. And I don't mean sections with catchy headings, I mean as structured and reference-like as possible.

I want to minimize the amount of time I spend reading prose and searching around, as well as the chance of missing things. I want to hit CTRL+F and be put where I need to be stat and have that be enough. Structure alone can convey a lot of the idea behind how something works - please trust me to able to utilize it to make basic leaps in logic.

A bad example for this is AWS documentation. It's a mish-mash of prose and structured reference. A good example is the AWS CLI documentation (although if they lead with example usages first, that'd be even better).

Writing good technical text is an art. There is a certain amount of fluff that helps, and it’s almost unnoticeable when it’s there. Without it, it’s too terse. Quite often, my complaint of technical documentation is “it did exactly what the docs said it would do, except in a situation that I didn’t expect it to do that”.