This really depends on the circumstance.
If magic is involved, mentioning a compulsion to act in a certain way is, by no means, off the table. What they decide to do is still up to them, within the bounds of the effect. See my link on that below.
Some things are simply autonomic-- the feeling of a chill or a fear effect might make the hairs stand up, but how they react to it is their deal.
What removes agency is something more like "You start to dance" and if you do that, it SHOULD be a big deal. In-game there are plenty of things that are mechanical and remove agency--fear effects, charisma spells and the like.
The other circumstance is the style of game. With my players, I use backstory to help paint the picture. A charismatic NPC character who has things in common with the PC's background might get a description specific to that character. (I might mention that the NPC reminds them of their sister back home.) My game tends to favor a personalized approach, as I outline in the answer to this question:
I also believe in using that personalization to help describe knowledge checks in a fun way.
But, if all descriptions are general, that is for the whole table, there's less of a chance to personalize responses.
My way of running gives characters CHOICES, but depending on the mechanics of the particular circumstance, I do throw in feeling. This is all about style of gameplay and what the players like and want, along with the kind of game you want to run.
TLDR: In the circumstance you've given, magic is involved. And when magic is involved, a manipulation of feelings is allowed. It's weaker than a fear effect, for which there are mechanics, but it's present and I don't feel it removes agency.