See also my responses below, but if the issues are potential execution and lack of context, then the appropriate response would be to ask questions about how these things would be executed and about their context, yes? Not to immediately accuse the character of being sparkly without knowing the context or how the character will be executed?

Also: "but out of nowhere, it's a bit out of nowhere."

...

Maybe you'd like to make that argument differently?

~Neshomeh

Let me see if I can explain why it came off that way. Part of it is that both you and EF touched on some of the same things, which made it seem like sort of a joint assault on what looked like pretty small details to me. Also, you both jumped straight to questioning the existence and/or quality of character details, rather than asking questions about them, if that makes sense. Not, "If she has a Muggle-use wand, did she go to HFA?" but rather, "How is it possible that someone like her could have this thing?" It's the "someone like her" qualifier that's problematic. To quote your actual words, troublesome qualifiers highlighted:

EF: She can, for somerising some reason, use a Muggle use wand.

Apparently this agent's ability to use a Muggle-use wand is in question. How come she needs a special reason? Do other agents need a reason, or just this one?

SS: Why would a spazzy fan girl learn how to use a knife or a muggle use wand?

Again, it seems the real issue is that this character is a spazzy fangirl, and spazzy fangirls need to justify having an interest in using this type of equipment. Does anyone else need to?

If Muggle-use wands were overpowered, or rare, or otherwise inappropriate in and of themselves, that should be problematic for any agent, not just one with Lola's traits. Same with the letter-opener, the languages, etc. These details are not actually the problem in and of themselves, but by questioning them in this way, you're casting doubt on the entire character. Poking at small things in order to get at a larger problem is nitpicking; the trouble here is that neither the details nor the bigger thing (the whole character concept) are actually problematic once explained. Which comes off badly.

I'm not at all sure I've explained this very well. Let me know if I'm not making sense.

~Neshomeh

So you can read Japanese? Kana or Kanji?

The HFA ones (HFA, not OFUM, what is wrong with me) only have the five spells, yeah. Unless you also count the ability to shoot sparks, I guess. The PPC ones are known to be more versatile—I had Agent Supernumerary use his to do a Full Body Bind and some levitation in his first mission, and there's an uncited line in the wiki article about using them in place of neuralyzers for memory modification. I fully support this and would love to find the story/ies where it happened so citation can happen.

And yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone could pick one up and get the hang of it without too much trouble. If Nume can use one without poking his own eye out, anyone can. ... 'Course, that in mind, it would be even more funny if Lola just can't quite get it right. *g*

~Neshomeh