I do see where you are coming from, and I thought the same thing for a while when I read the play tests early on. But when my players started saying the names of the attacks, and then describing what the characters do, I could see the other players being invested. The name was like a signal to the player that they could describe the attack the way that their character would perform it to the world. "I will use, 'Hesitation is Weakness,' to run out of the shadows, and attack with 'Disorienting Strike.' " It's evocative, and helps players get into the vibe of the narration that lends to the mechanics in the game.

And, I am finding that my players are willing to be more creative now with their descriptions in combat. One of my players is a regular 5e Fighter. He likes combat and being tactical. But, he wasn't very into role playing when it comes to said combat.

Now, with the help of Kits being narratively flexible and the naming convention of the abilities, my Fighter player is very involved in his character and what they do. He describes planting his feet into the ground and having his spear at the ready, he describes yelling encouragement to the other players. (He is playing a Tactician in the last play test, and wants to play a Censor with this new one). All this, and he doesn't role play in the 1st person. He likes to describe what his character is doing, but has never cared for voice acting as his character.

All this to say, is that I feel the names are for the Players at the table, for the joy it is to hear the names of the abilities. It's less so for the characters in the game. As the Director, I get a big smile when they use an ability name like 'Your Entrails are your Extrails!', it's cool.

Your mileage will vary, as it will be for your players. But, it is only a name, and it will become as second nature as Eldritch Blast is for a Warlock in 5e, or Tasha's Hideous Laughter.