Too many AI teammates get built and barely used. The problem is the name, not the tech.
A “Sales Assistant” that’s really just a lead scorer. A “Helper” that isn’t clear what it helps with. An “Assistant” that tries too hard to sound human.
I’ve been working with go-to-market teams who are building AI teammates. These are custom AI tools you build, train, and manage for specific tasks or workflows using Custom GPTs, Claude Projects, Gemini Gems, or Copilot Agents.
At first, I thought naming them would be the fun part. Star Wars characters. Marvel superheroes. The Office references. Turns out, fun names can work but only when they match the relationship you’re creating.
Here’s what I’m seeing.
1) Tool
Name it after what it does, like Lead Scorer, Data Categorizer, and Testimonial Finder.
Pure function, no personality. People use it once, get what they need, move on. Clear and to the point.
2) Sidekick
Name it to signal collaboration, like Draft Helper, Campaign Partner, and Strategy Assistant.
It adapts and works with you without pretending to be someone specific. This is where fun names can work like “Robin” or “Chewy” tell you it’s a helpful collaborator.
3) Persona
Name it after a specific person or role, like LizaGPT (my digital twin), CEO Jordan, Enterprise Buyer Persona, and Industry Analyst GPT.
Less about tasks, more about extending someone’s thinking. It tests ideas, challenges logic, finds blind spots. The name tells you whose perspective you’re getting. “Yoda” works here because everyone knows he challenges your thinking.
Match the name to the relationship you’re creating.
Better names set clearer expectations. And clearer expectations mean your AI teammates actually get used.
Where do your AI teammates sit on this spectrum?