Nuance is the main thing. If my approach is nuanced, if my writing follows the contours of my nuanced ideas, then I will be happy. The application of theory can lead to unnuanced approaches for two reasons.
(1) Theory can act like a bulldozer, running over the analytical material and imposing a single view of it; or a hammer hitting nails ("If your only tool is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail"); theoretical jargon sometimes imposes a view of things and doesn't allow for nuanced prose.
(2) Sometimes the critic's understanding of the theory is not very nuanced in the first place. Is the critic relying on a "canned" version of Foucault, or the farmer's market version?