In my opinion, it's more a question of what tells the best story. Certainly, you can get a lot of graphic detail, such as in SCP-835. Dr. Clef also had reworked SCP-231 to make it more ambiguous as to what was going on, and I felt it was a strength to the story.
For example, I wrote the new SCP-847, and it's been rather consistently described as intense. However, I don't go into detail regarding what male test subjects have been doing with the mannequin, nor do I describe the gore involved regarding what the mannequin does to female test subjects. That's because I don't have to. The reader knows what's happening. That's enough.
Another example of how this plays out in SCP documentation that does this well is SCP-089. You get the impression of the real problem with carrying out what needs to be carried out in order to get the disaster to end, but who needs to carry it out, and the resulting psychological and cultural pain that causes, aren't felt until the end of the piece, when the participants are described. From that point, we don't need to describe in detail what carrying it out is like. We just know.
If you want to delve into the intensity of an activity, make sure that it serves a narrative purpose. Gore for gore's sake won't work. However, gore that is necessary to understand the context of the story told will. It's a lot like what is discussed in Zen and the Art of DATA EXPUNGED. Leave out what can be filled in by the reader. The reader will do a better job of scaring themselves than you will. We don't need to know what the details of 110-Montauk are; we just know they're horrible, and we're doing it willingly to contain a worse threat. That's what the real crux of the article is about. The details of 110-Montauk are a MacGuffin. We don't talk about it because it's not important.
In the end, graphic depictions that serve narrative purpose are okay; ones that do not will just be downvoted out.
