One of the nifty things our brain will do is fill in what we expect to see and hear. In the context of a II-V-I progression, we treble players can get away with playing something like:
IIm9 (no root) Vx13 (no 5, 9 or 11), I69 (no 3)
and nothing will sound odd at all.
In general, this is true. But the brain has to have enough context to know that there
are gaps and to know how to fill in the gaps. Also, in extended chords, it's clutter to fill in all the notes, when what you're after is the essence of the harmonic structure or dissonances.
The central topic, though, as I read the original post, is whether it's valid (and honest) to pass off a chord like a simple minor as being a primary form of a more complex chord like X6 or XM7, particularly in a chord book and without comment. It makes sense for rootless 7ths, 9th and such because, between the other existing intervals and the harmonic context, your brain is given sufficient context. But in the case of
Xm for
YM7, it's more likely the brain will be misled to perceive it in another way. Chords like
X6/9 are not at issue because they sound unusual enough that they're unlikely to be mistaken for a simpler and equally acceptable harmonic alternative like a minor chord. The brain favors the simplest musical explanation that makes sense.
Someone pulling a chord out of a chord book very often doesn't have the theoretical background (or will) to understand the chord; they just accept it on good faith and think "Whenever I see that chord on a song sheet, that's what I should play." They're not thinking "Do I have enough harmonic context?" And they are unlikely to question that anything is missing unless they happen to note that the imposter has the same shape as another chord they know. It may not sound right or sufficient when they use it, but they won't know why. The author has cheated them.
One solution is for the author or editors to put notation under the chart labelling each chord component. Glen Rose does this for some of the chords he introduces in his books. At least then a person can see what is and is
not contained in the chord shape. I would go further, and make sure that the root position is always indicated in the chart, but showing the roots is a topic unto its own.