I understand why this may be considered to overlap with What should our FAQ contain?, but I think I'm trying to address a specific issue related to that which doesn't really fit in the original (which in any case has astonishingly low levels of activity, considering how central it is to the site).
Clearly on a day-to-day basis the FAQ must be primarily prescriptive, since we often need to cite it as the authority on non-acceptability of Questions. But in a comment against A look at question quality, I suggested we're still at a stage where the FAQ has a descriptive role in determining whether certain types of Question are "off-topic" (or otherwise "unwanted").
My reason for saying this is it's difficult to get agreement on a definition of "unwanted" there. I think this crucial issue is more easily addressessed if we allow the FAQ to be at least partially descriptive, so it can "evolve" rather than need to be "designed". Members should be encouraged to be more proactive in nudging that evolution, by up/downvoting Questions, and being more prepared to vote to close those they don't wish to see more of.
I'm sure there's a downside (on rep & other credibility factors) if a vote to close doesn't end up being endorsed. But that seems a small price to pay for each individual, considering how much more efficiently this might help us to crystalise the kind of Questions we want to encourage/discourage.
TL;DR: Vote to close (or downvote) more Questions you're not keen on, and trust the mods to use this enhanced feedback to amend the FAQ (or raise issues on meta, as appropriate).