For example, the common form of `await` calls implies cooperative multitasking and people will have a good reason to believe that no other tasks can't affect your code between two `await` calls. This is not generally true (e.g. Rust), but is indeed true for some languages like JS. Now consider two variants of JS, where both had `await` removed but one retains cooperative multitasking and another allows preemptitive tasks. They will necessarily demand different mental models, even though it is no longer syntactically distinguishable. I believe this distinction is important enough that they still have to be considered to have a function color, which is only uniform within a single language.
Zig's approach in comparison is often called "color-blind", because while it provides `async` and `await`, those keywords only change the return type to a promise (Zig term: async frame) and do not guarantee that it will do anything different. Instead, users are given the switch so that most libraries are expected to work equally well regardless of that switch. You can alternatively think this as follows: all Zig modules are implicitly parametrized via an implicit `io_mode` parameter, which affect the meaning of `async` and `await` and propagate to nested dependencies. There is definitely a color here, but it's no longer a function color because functions can no longer paint themselves. So I think it's reasonable to call this to have no function color.
[1] https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-...
For typical libraries, functions and structs are provided, and to the extent that these functions call functions provided by the user, they are generic over the async-ness of those functions. That's how the language-level async feature works, for library code that doesn't specify that it is async and doesn't specify that it would like to use a specific non-async calling convention for calling the user's callbacks.