All tie-ins have always been expected to remain consistent with screen canon as it exists at the time they're written. There is nothing remotely new about that. But consistency with canon doesn't make them part of the canon, and it doesn't mean that screen canon will make any attempt to stay consistent with the tie-ins in return.
I like to say that if canon is history, tie-ins are historical fiction. The goal is to tell stories that convince the audience they could have happened within the "real" continuity. Maintaining consistency with canon is equivalent to doing thorough research in historical fiction. You try to get as close to reality as possible, but that doesn't make it an actual part of history. It's still just a might-have-been.
Even books and comics that are considered "soft canon" -- which Trek books and comics are not -- are still subject to being contradicted by the primary canon, like how the Star Wars Kanan Jarrus origin comic was contradicted in some details by the premiere of The Bad Batch. Heck, even screen canon contradicts itself sometimes, since any ongoing creative work is subject to revision and correction (like how ST:TNG's Data was initially capable of subtle emotion until they retconned him as completely emotionless in the third season, or how he often used contractions until they suddenly declared that he didn't, even though he'd used one earlier in that same episode).
