Felix S. Klock II pointed out that this suggestion (introduced in
pull-request #43178 / eac74104) was being issued for one-field-struct
expected types (in which case it is misleading and outright wrong),
even though it was only intended for one-field enum-variants (most
notably, `Some`). Particularly tender-hearted code-historians may be
inclined to show mercy towards the author of #43178 on the grounds
that it's somewhat confusing that struct field definitions are given
in a type called `ty::VariantDef`.

Add a conditional to adhere to the original intent. (It would be
possible to generalize to structs, but not obviously net desirable.)
This adds a level of indentation, so the diff here is going to be
easier to read in ignore-whitespace mode (`-w`).

Resolves #55250.