FWIW, if so then I’m wrong. I’m in ART but with the same basic tools mostly.
I use (out of habit more than understanding?) L*a*b* chroma as an almost-default bump in global chromaticity on virtually all images. I then use other tools from there. Also, I use the Tone EQ far more often than a tone curve. If all I need to do is tame some highlights, I may just use a bit of Highlight Compression (in Log Tone Mapping). If it needs more I’ll use Tone EQ.
But more on point I use L*a*b* to set a kind of baseline and then use other tools (locally or not) to adjust from there.
My point is they all add up to a cumulative end result. So to my mind, if you can best use Tool A for 50% of an effect and Tool B for the other 50%, why not – Even if A or B could do all 100% each? Maybe if you use Tool A for 75%, then Tool B for -25% and then Tool C for 50% there could be some streamlining. But if it works, it works.
However if I’m being stupid I won’t be surprised.