So I was at work and couldn't answer this right away-
I do generally like the 'story setpiece' Spells that are sprinkled liberally through the books, but liking them and thinking them a good design approach is a different thing entirely. Specific implementations aside, I agree with ES a fair amount regarding the 'vision' of sorcery, but I shall unpack further...
A great deal of canon/2e sorcery has always come off as a view of 'someone else's story'. These are the beats and moments that made other characters legendary... and you can appropriate that. That is why a fair smattering of spells evoke explicit biblical miracles like parting the Red Sea, calling down plagues, or marching around a city and blowing a horn to knock down the walls. The advantage of say, a 3e-style Working system is that you can make setpiece beats for yourself without having to a- pay XP, b- deal with fussy one-off rules.
Like, as ES mentioned, one of the greater problems of sorcery is how each spell is a separated resolution blob. Used in moderation that'd be fine... but we have too many exceptions already. Hmm. Point is meandering.
You'll notice that in 3e, they doubled down hard on that 'narrative moment' approach- to which I will point at 3e's Food Gathering Exercise as my usecase example. The 2e version is 'Spend 5 minutes, feed [Essence] Magnitude people. Use 5 times for one day's worth of rations. The 3e version is this rambling treatise on how to hunt without tools, and it guarantees that after 3-4 uses, you WILL run into some suitably big game (and are implicitly encouraged to roleplay it live on camera, eating up screentime). Or the whole swath of socialize charms that let you become a single canon NPC/use his same toolset.
So digging down- evocative descriptions and 'quirks' to make the spell stand out in our minds is good. Invocation of the Invincible Army imo is a fun spell because it makes me want to optimize for it- get a swole sorcerer with huge endurance, have him hold up his arms for 12 hours, get awesome benefits.
Generally what ES proposes and I agree with for the most part is the descriptions should not bleed into the resolution mechanics too much- enough to be evocative in their own right, but not requiring an exception-per-spell. It's why he's pushing down onto Anchors and channeling specific flavors of Essence. Remember though that I adore borgstromancy, so applying it artfully is also worth doing in my mind.
