Text clustering can streamline many labor-intensive tasks, but it creates a new challenge: efficiently labeling and interpreting the clusters. Generative large language models (LLMs) are a promising option to automate the process of naming text clusters, which could significantly streamline workflows, especially in domains with large datasets and esoteric language. In this study, we assessed the ability of GPT-3.5-turbo to generate names for clusters of texts and compared these to human-generated text cluster names. We clustered two benchmark datasets, each from a specialized domain: research abstracts and clinical patient notes. We generated names for each cluster using four prompting strategies (different ways of including information about the cluster in the prompt used to get LLM responses). For both datasets, the best prompting strategy beat the manual approach across all quality domains. However, name quality varied by prompting strategy and dataset. We conclude that practitioners should consider trying automated cluster naming to avoid bottlenecks or when the scale of the effort is enough to take advantage of the cost savings offered by automation, as detailed in our supplemental blueprint for using LLM cluster naming. However, to get the best performance, it is vital to test a variety of prompting strategies and perform a small test to identify which one performs best on each project’s unique data.