Aluffi II.6.11 suggests proving the above.
Here's the sketch of my proof by contradiction.
Assume that $S_3$ is a coproduct of a family $\mathcal{C}$ of cyclic groups $C^i$. Using the universal property for coproducts (and considering morphisms $\sigma_i : S_3 \rightarrow C^i$ such that $\sigma_i \iota_i = 1$, where $\iota_i$ is the injection function) shows that each $C^i$ cannot be larger (as a set) than $S_3$.
Next, since $S_3$ has three elements of order 2 and two elements of order 3, it can be shown that any cyclic group that maps its generator onto one of those elements shall have order 2 or 3 respectively.
So we're down to a corpoduct of a certain number of $C_2$ and $C_3$.
Now, by considering both elements of order 3 in $S_3$, it can be shown that having two $C_3 \in \mathcal{C}$ with different injection functions leads to contradiction, so we have at most one $C_3$. We also have to have at least one $C_2$ mapping onto some element of order 2, otherwise there's a certain freedom in defining the behavior of some morphisms from $S_3$. Similarly, we also have to have at least one $C_3$.
Now, considering the group $C_2 \times C_3$ along with a pair of morphisms $\varphi_2 : C_2 \rightarrow C_2 \times C_3, \varphi_2([n]_2) = ([n]_2, [0]_3)$ and $\varphi_3 : C_3 \rightarrow C_2 \times C_3, \varphi_3([n]_3) = ([0]_2, [n]_3)$ it can be shown that there is no valid homomorphism $\sigma : S_3 \rightarrow C_2 \times C_3$ satisfying the corresponding universal property for coproducts, hence the contradiction with the original assumption.
Overall, this looks quite clunky. Does it look reasonable though? Is there a better way to prove the claim (perhaps limited to the little amount of algebra and category theory that might be expected by this point)?
The problem states
I think that your approach is a reasonable way of going about it given what information you have available. Certainly if $C_n$ is a factor of the coproduct then $n\in\{2,3\}$ as you mentioned, since these are the only nontrivial orders of elements in $S_3$.
I think the simplest way to move forward from here is to note that there should be a map $f:S_3\to C_3$ such that
$$C_3 \xrightarrow{i} S_3 \xrightarrow{f} C_3$$
is the identity map, if we assume that $S_3$ is a coproduct with a $i:C_3\to S_3$ factor. You can then reach a contradiction by showing that no such $f$ exists.