This isn't necessarily a bad thing. A more precisely worded contract, for example, is arguably more likely to have unambiguous loopholes that people can abuse without you being able to easily fight back. The well-known reductio ad absurdum of this phenomenon is Etherium smart contracts.
You see this in laws, too. The US's Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and associated case law, for example, contain all sorts of explicit refusals to say things more precisely. The stated rationale, here, is that it's impossible for the people drafting these rules to anticipate every possible situation and contingency, and instead they must trust that reasonable attorneys and judges are able sort things out in the course of litigation.
The article then went on to say this isn't necessarily a bad thing: two lawyers put their arguments before the judge, and the judge can then decide what's best for that particular situation.
The author of the article was at least somewhat libertarian, because he suggested that this is necessary when there's a single body of Law to deal with; the other way to deal with these problems is to go with arbitrators instead -- but in that case, the "Law" would be decided between the two parties and the arbitrator, which has its own twists and turns!