So I will present one approach. But I should caution that this is not the approach, and others may quite reasonably differ.
If an inventive step solves several problems outlined in the background, should you list each problem as an "object of the invention" separately and if so, do you need to address each solution separately when writing the detailed description of the drawings/embodiments?
No. Indeed, there is a risk to listing any objects at all, as they are essentially a guarantee that your invention achieves the object.
As an consequence of this, US-style drafting has conventionally moved away from including any discussion of benefits. But, in my view that swings the needle far too far in the opposite direction: including some limited commentary about benefits is useful to support non-obviousness/inventive step.
One quite useful way to structure a discussion of the benefits can be found in traditional British-style drafting, which uses the summary section. In the summary section, there is a copy of each claim, along with some description about the benefits inherent to that claim.
For example (and in unpolished terms):
In a first aspect, there is provided a shower head comprising features A, B, and C. Such a shower head may be easier to use, … because. Additionally or alternatively, such a shower head provides better water-flow consistency, because ….
In some embodiments, the shower head comprises a connector D. This may allow for easier installation because ….
Then in the detailed description, you focus solely on how the device works: there is no need to repeat the benefits, since they've already been set out.
But solving multiple problems raises a flag
That said, if your device solves multiple problems, then it may be an indication that you actually have multiple inventions which could each be claimed separately. That is, if the ease-of-use is due to feature B, and the improved consistency is due to feature C, and both are at least arguably novel and non-obvious, then you could well have a separate independent claim directed to each of these. This would broaden your protection.
Of course, if the features cannot be so easily divided (since both solutions are dependent on having features B and C together), then a single independent claim may be quite reasonable.
Does the use of fuzzy terms such as "ease of use" require further definition as to how the "use is easier" within the detailed description of the embodiments? If so, should you breakdown the elements of "ease of use" as further objects before the description?
The standard you must meet is that the person having ordinary skill in the art (or, in reality, the examiner or another disinterested reader) would understand what you mean. There is no hard rule for this, and you must essentially use your intuition. If you believe the skilled person would understand "ease of use" in the manner you intend without any further explanation, then there is no need to explain. However, if you believe the skilled person might find it a bit unclear on its own, then explain a little what you mean. It may be that you can break it down into separate benefits (which does not hurt to include). In general, if you're unsure, more explanation is better, since you can't add it later.
