System name
System is usually named by type (a narrow class) of its primary function (if named by a team that deals with the supra system), or by the service it provides (if named by the manufacturer) --- i.e. by its main intended behavior in its supra system/operational environment. In other words, a system is named as a role object if you use it, or as part of a construction if you produce it --- but in the produced system, you also try to anticipate its function, indicate its role (by type). If you have a box in your car that connects various electronic devices (ignition lock, speedometer, etc.) to the internet (some servers in the cloud), then what do you call it? By type! In a house, the device that connects various home electronics to the internet is called a router. Here it will be an automotive router! That's it, the type (router of data packets from some local devices to the "big internet") is defined, and you will save a lot of time explaining what kind of target system you have.
By the primary purpose/function, as a role object, not only target systems are named, but also all others (supra system, systems in the environment, subsystems), i.e. naming the system turns out to be naming it as a functionally "black box" of a specified purpose, not a transparent box, and this naming is associated with behavior, playing a certain typical role. This typical role will be the name of the system. So, the naming of a system depends on the expected system environment --- services strive to name it as some generalization of the expected role and function of the system in the supra system.
Thus, a microscope is designed to view small objects: "observe micro." If sometimes it is used to hammer nails, this is not considered its primary purpose, although this will sometimes be its behavior/function in the supra system. This is a rare purpose, a feature of some usage scenarios. Therefore, a microscope cannot be called a "microscope with nail-driving capability" or a "hammering microscope." No, only by its primary purpose. But if you take a microscope into your system specifically as a nail driver, then call it that way! The name of the "seller" and the name of the "buyer" can differ: we have already discussed that service and function are different. A service and the name of a system as a constructive object are usually done by the seller and express the expectation of possible use. But the functional object is being bought and is named according to the actual use. If you buy a microscope (manufacturer's name!) as a nail driver (consumer's name!), do not be surprised at two names.
At this, a class/type of systems is named, not a unique instance of a system. And more often than not, it is a role object, an "activity performer" (assembler, loader, cutter), but not only. The purpose of "scissors" (cutting something, derived from "knife") is well known, so scissors will most likely be called scissors --- but with clarifications (for example, "metal scissors"). Remember that overgeneralization is a big mistake. A microscope cannot be called an "optical device," and scissors would be better to specify as well --- hairdressing or metal scissors. To specify/specialize is good, to generalize is bad. If you name a system "fruit" instead of "orange," don't be surprised if people get angry when they find out that you sold them a peach. Because a peach is a "fruit," and buyers will assume that "fruit" will play any role in this category. If not any --- they will be perfectly right to get upset. So name accurately, as always, do not generalize.
The most common mistake made in naming is listing all possible functionality in a long list. Instead of "bus," it will be "boarding and transport system on highways, stop notifications and driver-passenger communication, passenger disembarkation and door closing for safety purposes." This is unacceptable: any long list enumeration of functions in the name is not allowed. And sometimes there is already an established name, and that's what should be used --- the same "bus." If it is a type, then everyone will understand what such a system does.
Another equally common mistake is indicating not a role object, i.e. actions/function in the supra system, but a construction. Construction usually relates to the time of system manufacturing, "what and how we made this system." Instead of "metal scissors," it will be "system of blades, handles, and screw," an obvious mistake. Instead of "antistatic for plastic" (the role of "antistatic" in the potential supra system "plastic"), it will be "system of introducing carbon tubes into plastics" (made the antistatic, a mistake). No, the name of the system is given by its primary/usual/typical purpose, by its role/functionality in a typical supra system.