This is a fine explanation (in that it seems fully faithful to Marx's description in Capital, to the best of my understanding). But it's not a good defense, because it doesn't address any of the issues that have led economists to overwhelmingly prefer the marginal theory of value.

Most notably, it only really works for commodities. In modern economies, commodities are important, but not very interesting. There are services, technology, entertainment--all sorts of things like that. Plus everything is in flux, there is all sorts of inventory all over the place, there are lags due to worker training times, etc. etc. etc.. Basically, it's the exception rather than the rule for the preconditions to be met.

So what do you do with everything else? How do you understand content creators on YouTube? Is Mr Beast so valuable because he puts in so much more labor than everyone else? (Hint: no.) Are large diamonds so valuable because they're useful for something? (Hint: no.) Is the value related to how much work it is to find them? (Mostly no.) And so on.

In contrast, the marginal theory of value handles everything the Labor Theory of Value does, when it comes to price, and most everything else as well. It handles temporal fluctuations, limited knowledge, and so on, all within the same framework. It doesn't make a moral case that human labor is the only thing of worth. But then...we don't even believe that. Not if we think, for instance, land is worth something. We might decide that land shouldn't be owned, but that's a very different statement than saying that because land requires no labor to create that it has no value. Of course it does. But mostly we keep swapping around the land we've already got, not endeavoring to produce more.

In the limiting case of a static society with identical humans whose job is to industriously produce large quantities of a relatively unchanging set of commodities, the theory works pretty well. But that's easy mode. Everything works well there.

And the moral justification for labor being the fundamental source of value kind of falls off when it no longer works as a good explanation (even in the absence of exploitative bourgeois) for price.