No, Atlantis is more importantly in the Timaeus, which unlike the Critias is actually complete. Other texts mention Plato's story, but it's always in the context of Plato's story--there is no independent tradition, the tradition of Atlantis begins and ends with Plato. Later authors discussed the literary function of the story as presented in Plato, with parodies by both Theopompus and Euhemerus. Plutarch mentions it in his life of Solon, but his wording implies that Solon's story as mentioned by Plato never existed, everything that he's saying is coming out of Plato, whom he straight cites as his source. Posidonius (quoted by Strabo) postulated the philosophical question of whether Atlantis conceivably might have existed, but the point seems to be a discussion on what Posidonius considers to be enough evidence to base arguments of natural philosophy rather than a belief that Atlantis actually existed--basically Posidonius says that since Plato says that Solon wrote something about Atlantis, it is at least as philosophically logical to suppose that Solon did write something that nobody has anymore as to assume that Plato's inventing the whole thing for literary purposes. The destruction of Atlantis as described in the Timaeus became a sort of example in later explanations of certain natural phenomena--for example, Ammianus Marcellinus refers to the destruction of Atlantis to describe a particular kind of earthquake--but again the reference is always back to what Plato has and is just an extension of the Platonic tradition

Didn't he almost defiantly just make the place up?