For a new or low-crawl page, two weeks is usually too early to act, so the general answer is yes, too early, unless there is a concrete fixable issue you can address right now. A young page may not be fully evaluated yet, and a low-crawl page may not even have been re-crawled in that span, so “no movement” after two weeks frequently means nothing has happened yet rather than that something is wrong. The real pivot is whether there is an identifiable, fixable problem versus mere impatience.
The case for waiting is that two weeks is short relative to how a new page settles. Google may still be discovering, indexing, and testing the page’s position, and on a site that gets crawled infrequently, the page might be sitting in the queue with its latest state not yet reflected. Acting in that window, rewriting, re-optimizing, swapping the title, risks changing the page while it is still being evaluated, which can reset the process and slow things further. So the reflex to “act fast and tweak it” tends to make a non-problem worse.
But “always wait” is the wrong reflex too, because the wait only applies when there is nothing concrete to fix. There is a clear difference between a page that is simply not done settling and a page with a real defect you can see right now. If the page is not indexed, blocked, returning errors, missing from the sitemap, or has an obvious technical break, those are concrete issues that will not resolve with patience, and you should fix them immediately regardless of how recent the page is. The conditional is the whole answer: act on a concrete issue, wait on impatience.
So before deciding, check for a concrete fixable problem: is the page indexed, crawlable, error-free, and reachable. If you find one, fix it now. If everything checks out and the page is simply not moving yet, treat two weeks as too early and wait for it to be crawled and evaluated rather than tweaking a page that is still settling.