I am not sure if the analysis i want to make is supposed to be obligatory, optional or permissible. Can anyone help me decide which one an analysis should be?
By analysis i mean a a proposition that describes the composition of properties. An example of an analysis is that the property of being a bachelor is the property of being unmarried and the property of being male.
Your question is lacking some important direction, but I'll just lean into the lack of structure and suggest that the utility and the obligation to perform analysis are a function of the goal of thinking, and therefore different philosophical positions will treat it differently.
For instance, take fideism. It's outright hostile to analysis, because it holds faith as a core epistemological tenet. Clearly to a fideist, on important topics, analysis is an anathema. That's different from traditional Catholic doctrine which holds in theological matters, analysis is an important part of getting to know God. Contemporary philosophers as a general rule love analysis (SEP), but the question of what analysis is is a matter for analysis itself. Just consider Cummins's musings on functional analysis regarding teleological ideas in biology (SEP). Here what constitutes analysis is specific to biology. So, each philosophy-of is likely to have a different take on analysis depending on the domain-specific matter. The analysis of computational complexity is a distinct pursuit than the analysis of what constitutes a metaphilosophical theory.
The Linguistic Turn might be seen as dragging philosophy into the activity of linguistic analysis, something that the Logical Positivists advocated by declaring metaphysics nothing but. It didn't weather well for them, and ultimately the movement collapsed, but the thinking that philosophy is nothing but a "matter of semantics" certainly had an impact on the secular society at large. Many famous pro-science figures have questioned the value of philosophy. Quine quite famously attacked the analytic-synthetic distinction in his Two Dogmas. Here, Quine's analysis is seen as finding the analytic-synthetic distinction of Kant questionable. So, if you're talking about the logic that inheres to semantic relations of natural language, perhaps you're better off plumbing the depths of various theories of semantics themselves.
Ultimately, when and how to apply analysis is very much contextually driven, and you've yet to cough up a context to make an answer to the question meaningful.
