What's wrong with my ($prop_name,%prop_options) = @_;? Dereferencing a $prop_options would mean a bit more typing.

Oh sorry what I meant is actually:

has 'friends' => { is => 'rw', isa => 'Array', default => () };

Anyway the reason I said the latter syntax makes more sense is because I saw the latter syntax more often. For example In https://metacpan.org/pod/HTML::Template#TMPL_LOOP:

$template->param(
    EMPLOYEE_INFO => [{name => 'Sam', job => 'programmer'}, {name => '
+Steve', job => 'soda jerk'}]
);
print $template->output();
[download]

This code uses reference(array) because of clarity and I think most subroutines uses this syntax.
However this line

has 'friends' => ( is => 'rw', isa => 'Array', default => () );
[download]

is same as:

has 'friends',is => 'rw', isa => 'Array', default => ();
[download]

which is not clear and as for me that looks just weird.
But when using reference, you don't have to use awkward arrow between 'friends' and 'is'

has 'friends',{ is => 'rw', isa => 'Array', default => () };

Of course, not using reference parameter saves some typing but that saves typing of Moose's author, not of us. And using reference is also not a big deal.Clarity is more important

These are all exactly equivalent:

has   'friends' => ( is => 'rw',   isa => 'Array',   default => () );
has    friends  => ((is => 'rw'), (isa => 'Array'), (default => ()));
has    friends  =>   is => 'rw',   isa => 'Array',   default => ();
has    friends  =>   is =>  rw =>  isa =>  Array =>  default => ();
has   "friends",    "is",  "rw",  "isa",  "Array",  "default",  ();
has qw/friends       is     rw     isa     Array     default/,  ();
[download]

Moose has just chosen to write things the way they do, but you're free to choose any of the above, whichever is clearest to you - that's a lot of freedom! It's just a matter of taste, and arguing about it is just like arguing about whether your sandwich tastes better depending on if it's sliced diagonally, horizontally or vertically ;-)