Everyone I've worked with agrees that naming matters. Almost nobody spends any time on it. The name gets picked while the code is half written and then it sticks, because renaming feels like fuss once the thing works.

The check I use in review is to read the function name and the parameters and say in one sentence what the call does. If I can do that without opening the body, fine. If I can't, either the name is bad or the function is doing two jobs and no single name will cover it. In my experience it's the second more often than you'd think, so I run this before I look at length or complexity. It finds the same problem earlier.

The best names are the ones the product owner already uses. The worst describe the machinery: process, handle, manager, helper, data. Each is a placeholder for a noun nobody has bothered to find yet. The type should agree with the name too. A parameter called id typed as string takes anything. Call it userId with a UserId type and the call site, the signature and the compiler all say the same thing.

The fair objection is width, and code that borrows abbreviations from the paper it implements. Width is an editor problem. For code that follows a paper, cite the paper next to the module and the abbreviation is the honest name for its readers. For ordinary application code I'd hold the line.

Agents have made me stricter about this. They abbreviate out of habit and it's easy to wave through proc because the prompt said processing. A developer who meets that later opens the body and works it out. An agent takes the name at face value and builds on it, so one lazy name becomes the vocabulary for everything around it.

I write these up at https://prickles.org/tenet/intention-revealing-names/F2 if the longer version is any use.