Creating large-scale high-quality labeled datasets is a major bottleneck in supervised machine learning workflows. Auto-labeling systems are a promising way to reduce reliance on manual labeling for dataset construction. Threshold-based auto-labeling, where validation data obtained from humans is used to find a threshold for confidence above which the data is machine-labeled, is emerging as a popular solution used widely in practice. Given the long shelf-life and diverse usage of the resulting datasets, understanding when the data obtained by such auto-labeling systems can be relied on is crucial. In this work, we analyze threshold-based auto-labeling systems and derive sample complexity bounds on the amount of human-labeled validation data required for guaranteeing the quality of machine-labeled data. Our results provide two insights. First, reasonable chunks of the unlabeled data can be automatically and accurately labeled by seemingly bad models. Second, a hidden downside of threshold-based auto-labeling systems is potentially prohibitive validation data usage. Together, these insights describe the promise and pitfalls of using such systems. We validate our theoretical guarantees with simulations and study the efficacy of threshold-based auto-labeling on real datasets.