It's ok if you do things like that for clarity. We might (or might not) edit it out if the post makes the front page - that's a judgment-call area*. But we wouldn't post a scolding for it. We only do that when the guideline was broken in an obvious or baity way.
For example, the OP was clearly editorialized when it didn't need to be—and in a baity way, which ended up lowering the quality of the thread. I'm sure that was unintentional, but the guidelines are intended to guard against that so we want people to be aware of them.
The title guideline is necessarily worded in a generic way. In practice there are lots of nuances, details, etc.
* One informal practice that works fairly well is that we often leave edited titles (assuming they aren't egregious) in place until/unless the submission makes the front page. At that point it is guaranteed a certain amount of attention, so the downside of reverting to the original title is lower, and we'll often do it then.
For example, the OP was clearly editorialized when it didn't need to be—and in a baity way, which ended up lowering the quality of the thread. I'm sure that was unintentional, but the guidelines are intended to guard against that so we want people to be aware of them.
The title guideline is necessarily worded in a generic way. In practice there are lots of nuances, details, etc.
* One informal practice that works fairly well is that we often leave edited titles (assuming they aren't egregious) in place until/unless the submission makes the front page. At that point it is guaranteed a certain amount of attention, so the downside of reverting to the original title is lower, and we'll often do it then.