Shouldn’t be too surprising that basically everything is worse than the one configuration we know to be conducive to life. Too far or too close? Bad. No moon? Bad. Too big a moon? Bad. Weird inclination? Bad. Double planet? Bad. Too slow/fast a rotation? Bad. And so on.
Wrong shape of puddle? Bad.
Sure, anthropic arguments only go so far, but many of these things seem independent of the exact characteristics of life. A planet where some part of the surface freezes for half the year and scorches the other half doesn’t seem very conducive. One that’s regularly pummeled by asteroids/comets seems bad. If we look at the history of life on Earth, it seems that we benefited by having just the right amount of physical selection pressure. Too little and you get stagnancy; too much and you lose ground by hitting reset too often (and possibly not allowing life in the first place). The environment is diverse but not too diverse, encouraging life to fill out a variety of niches.
I live on a part of the surface of a planet where that happens. Life manages to get by. Maybe it’d get by even better with less seasonable variability. Maybe it’d get by better with more. We just don’t have the sample size to tell.