If the variances are known to be $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ and the correlations are $\rho_{01}$, $\rho_{02}$ and $\rho_{12}$ then you can do exactly as you suggest - write down the variance of the total portfolio as a function of your holdings $x_0$, $x_1$ and $x_2$ and set the partial derivatives with respect to $x_1$ and $x_2$ to zero. You end up with the following matrix equation
$$
\left[
\begin{matrix}
\sigma_1^2 && \rho_{12}\sigma_1\sigma_2 \\
\rho_{12}\sigma_1\sigma_2 && \sigma_2^2
\end{matrix}
\right]
\left[
\begin{matrix}
x_1\\x_2
\end{matrix}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{matrix}
\rho_{01}\sigma_1 \\
\rho_{o2}\sigma_2
\end{matrix}
\right] \sigma_0 x_0$$
which you can solve by inverting the matrix, as long as $\rho_{12}\neq \pm 1$ (ie your hedging assets aren't perfectly correlated or anticorrelated).
As to whether this is sound - well, it depends what you mean by "sound". You are minimizing the total variance of your portfolio, conditional on you knowing the covariance matrix. That's about all you can say. Your "risk model" is a single dimension - you are saying that the only notion of risk that you care about is the total variance.
A full risk evaluation would need a procedure for determining the covariance matrix, and some level of backtesting to determine if your forecast risk after the hedge is a reflection of the true risk you would see if you were to hold this portfolio.