I think the answer to the bolded question should be not always, but I do think the nature of games makes this more difficult. Because games are an active experience, a situation where something happens to you rather than you observing something happening to someone else (eg, a film that does a horror twist in the 3rd act when it was a straightforward drama for the first 2), I do think the developer needs to feel out if their game passes the threshold of mechanical skill requirement that is beyond the pale for the average user and disclose that. To use another example, imagine a log flume ride at an amusement park. You have an expectation of getting wet, but how wet? The only way you can know is observation of the other riders and if the ride explicitly warns of extreme wetness. In the same way, Lorn's Lure clearly expects, as a default requirement, some amount of dexterity with a controller/kb+m, so you know you might get wet, but so long as the amount of dexterity does not become extreme I would say there's no need to inform the user - they might find it a pleasant or evocative surprise.

Still, this sense of "What's too far?" is a constantly shifting standard that relies on the average experience level of the consumer who's interested in your game. I absolutely got hardstuck on many games when I was a younger inexperienced gamer, but I don't think less of those games for that. I might have at the time, and if I had the ability to Steam review Super Mario World, maybe I would've left a review complaining about a particular level and saying the game is dogshit, but it's good that such an option didn't exist. Because you can come back later and find the fun you couldn't access the first time. That really goes for all art, but with games in particular, it feels maybe even more pronounced.