It feels important to clarify what we mean by the term “MOC” here. Some mean LYT-style broad high-level MOCs while others mean something much more focused, similar to a smaller topic-focused outline. The term is used to represent a broad range of structures and is a very generic concept so it should be qualified when we make statements about their applicability to a particular problem. (I myself have multiple “tiers” of “MOCs” in my own notes, with different levels of complexity, some of which may be more appropriate to particular problems than others)
Regarding titles: It seems you are bumping into the problem of overly-generic note titles (also applicable to tag names) in that they don’t provide enough context to explain the connection being established.
The solution you are finding (as I have found also) is well-described by Andy Matuschak:
- Evergreen notes should be concept-oriented
- Evergreen note titles are like APIs
- Prefer note titles with complete phrases to sharpen claims
- Prefer positive note titles to promote systematic theory
TLDR: As you are discovering, phrase-based titles are more powerful because they focus the note more tightly and enable each note to act as a standalone claim (with supporting material in the note itself) that can be linked from various outlines in various orders to establish various arguments and theories.
This doesn’t mean every note must have such a title, just that when it is possible to do so there is more expressive power generated as a result.