I agree that, instinctively, it makes sense to have as many factors as you want. That's precisely what I did by using 540 and 420, both of which have 24 factors. In practice, those tend to generate "largest divisor is X" clues, which are the worst you can get.
By starting with 499, I often get a clue like "(499 - x)'s largest prime divisor is 59." That is much more useful as it limits it to 8 solutions right away. Meanwhile, with your example of "x > 512; x and 512's largest divisor is 4," you still have 61 possible solutions. Obviously, 8 is much better.
I think for the Oct 5 puzzle, I had "(x -499)'s largest prime divisor is 47" as my first clue, which left 10 candidates, which is still much better than 61.
[ETA: I'm pretty sure with your "x > 512; x and 512's largest divisor is 4" clue, the answer will not be 512 plus a square number. That means you could eliminate +4, +36, +100, +196, +324, and +484...which brings it down to 55 candidates. I think you'd get a "(x - 512) is a perfect square" as your clue were the solution 516, 548, etc.
Similarly, it probably isn't 644 or 932, since that would generate a "(x + 512) is a perfect square" clue, which brings it down to 53 candidates. I don't know this for a fact, but xdle seems to generate these clues when possible.]
I encourage you to experiment with the free xdle using different starters, including 499. Take note of the number of possible solutions that are left after that initial number.
My stats for xdle and Dordle were reset a few weeks ago. Since then, in 23 games, I have zero losses, 3 twos, 14 threes, 3 fours, 2 fives, and 1 six. I doubt that's possible starting with 512.
October 6's puzzle is a bad example because it took me 4 guesses using 499 and 3 using 512 (pretending I didn't know the answer). Both numbers generate the kind of clue I was discussing, but 512 generates a better one (3 candidates for 512 vs. 8 candidates for 499).