What I remember, from back, long ago, in Operations classes, was that the sail-and-steam combo was used as the oeprations “tempo” required.
The sailing rig was required, generally, as a boiler or plant break down would not “strand” the ship in mid-mission. Or, given the less-than precise engineering of the day, running out of fuel creates another issue too.
If a captain were off to, oh, answer a call from an American consul on, say the Orinoco, sailing most of the way would make operational sense, with favoarble winds. But, very probably, one would want to conserve some portion of coal stores to be able to steam up river as needed, to address the specific tactical situation.
The problem of combined steam and sail, though, is that it’s a good idea, just not very practical. The favorable wind conditions are just the sort of conditions that spew embers on one’s sails. In addition, there’s specific rigging requirements for setting sail, or for setting some of the stacks used. Kind of a case where one can have one or the other, but not both.
I want to remember that weather conditions played a part, too, There were some storm conditions which precluded shoveling coal into the relatively open burn grates. Which would/could be exacerbated by the need for open pathways for combustion and exhaust air being less-than compliant with proper “battening of hatches” as it were.
The finicky bit of these sorts of things is what “drove” or “forced” the eventual integration of engineering officers into the Navy’s “Line” officer ranks. Commanding officers had to be versed well enough in power operations to make reasoned assessments of the operational needs of their ships.