If I write something on the lines of "the work is well-written and well-presented" and keep the review report succinct, I am worried that the editor might think I did not review it critically.
There is no such thing as a perfect paper. Even when a paper is technically sound and written in perfect English, there usually is something like an explanation that could have done better, a confusing notation, a missed connection to existing work, or a misleading emphasis in the abstract. You probably know this from your own writing that no matter how often you revised it in response to constructive critique, a reviewer can point out some obvious (minor) improvement.
As a consequence, when I am reviewing a paper (that I had not seen before) and had nothing to remark for a few paragraph, this is very likely because I became unfocused. When I receive a paper from internal review without any comments, I am suspecting that the reviewer did not put much effort into it.
And if I were an editor, an otherwise all positive review (as you are about to give) would carry more weight for me if accompanied by a list of minor issues. This demonstrates that the reviewer actually thoroughly and critically read the paper. It also somewhat makes it less likely that the reviewer is just blindly recommending acceptance of a crony’s paper. One of my own papers was clearly subjected to one more review than usual for the respective journal after receiving a short exclusively positive review.
Now, it is of course impossible to know the editor’s stance on this, unless you intimately know them. Also, things may be a bit different, if you have a reputation as a thorough reviewer and the paper in question is written by your known arch-enemy. However, I consider it unlikely that a paper’s chances are diminished by a list of minor issues clearly labelled as such. This should of course be accompanied by the things mentioned in the other answers:
- A summary of the paper in your own words.
- A short list of technical highlights of the paper.
- A short evaluation of the paper’s importance (unless the journal in question explicitly does not care abut novelty/impact).