Is it important to include the XPUB fingerprint in the wallet descriptor?

Consider the following descriptor:

1: pk(xpub68Enqrw9EMhovqR93YKMGJ67JiNqVkMxggjzJY3ijcJmFv4TSBqUXg94GXN4UCEop1MAmUUucDzUphakwFQy8Da8ENoiz7cBRA2P11GeKVU)#rrz9d6nw
2: pk((b3d53e5f)xpub68Enqrw9EMhovqR93YKMGJ67JiNqVkMxggjzJY3ijcJmFv4TSBqUXg94GXN4UCEop1MAmUUucDzUphakwFQy8Da8ENoiz7cBRA2P11GeKVU)#qx98nulh
3: pk((2f9a2980)xpub68Enqrw9EMhovqR93YKMGJ67JiNqVkMxggjzJY3ijcJmFv4TSBqUXg94GXN4UCEop1MAmUUucDzUphakwFQy8Da8ENoiz7cBRA2P11GeKVU)#zk36mwcm

They all contain the same XPUB. The first descriptor has no fingerprint/key identifier. The second descriptor contains its own fingerprint. The third descriptor contains the fingerprint of the derived master key.

When passing this descriptor bitcoin-cli deriveaddressesThey all produce the same results. 1HPsQmQYzaDqF4aVLS8Wy16mZ3KuaMgaVu.

I know that the fingerprint speaks of the chain of the old XPUB and can be used to verify ownership of a specific key in the wallet. Do you provide the value in the context of the descriptor, or can it be safely removed from the descriptor?