"it depends"
Assuming you're referring to photos published for others to see:
- do you need to add information to clearly identify the image from others you have taken (eg file number; event/sequence number) so there's no confusion if there are questions or orders - from your post I don't think that's what you were asking about;
- does a title (and/or description) help shape how you want others to perceive the photograph (as the examples btgc mentioned above). Do you want to leave viewers free to bring their own interpretation to the image? Is the photograph open to multiple interpretations or is the photograph so clear in its message that no caption or description is necessary?
- I think of text and photographs together as almost a separate way of communicating than just a photograph alone. Once you introduce text, language and meaning become part of the message. A photograph without text is a purely visual message. Different beasts.
- A good title can add to the image IMHO. A bad title can diminish the image. Better to have a good title, or no title at all. And no, I can't define what a good title is, but I usually recognise one when I see one. It's a separate art from photography. Some people have a natural talent.
Edit: forgot to mention, when you have tens of thousands of images, adding descriptions to metadata is a very good idea. Or annotating the back of prints, or the mounts of transparencies.
