How far can I go when requesting presentational changes in a review?
A lot of journals "retype" the submitted works and the formatting of the version of the paper that appears in the journal will be different from what the authors submitted initially. I would not point out LaTeX problems in the peer review unless they severely limit the clarity/correctness of the paper.

You probably need to justify the text restructure - if it's going to majorly improve the flow of the paper and highlight certain important features. However, you should balance between "I think it is just better to write it this way" (use this judgment for your own papers) and "Providing the definition of A is important to avoid ambiguity in B" (certainly include in your review).

Since you explicitly added the question about the title change, I would advise applying an even harsher standard on personal taste vs. necessary changes judgment for the title.

Anyway, especially in your first review, I would focus more on the major questions:


Novelty of the scientific contribution
Correctness of the proofs
Proper coverage of the previous work
Justification by numerical results and visualization (if applicable)


Pointing out typos and grammar mistakes is also important, but that should probably constitute the minor part of your review.